Build segment-specific pages only where volume justifies it

After optimising existing pages, you're ready to build new pages for segments that genuinely need them. But don't build pages just because you can. Build only where the combination of volume and message distance justifies it.

This chapter shows you how to calculate page requirements using a segment × campaign matrix, determine when segments can share pages versus need separate pages, structure pages per segment (proof type, detail level, objection handling), and limit total page count to 3-12 for maintainability.

Create a matrix showing which pages you need. Rows are segments (compliance-driven, breach-reactive, proactive). Columns are campaign types (LinkedIn ads, Google search, remarketing, content marketing, etc.). Each cell answers: does this segment-campaign combination need a dedicated page?

The decision criteria: high volume + high message distance = separate page. High volume means >1,000 visitors per month (enough traffic to optimise). High message distance means belief gaps are very different (compliance-driven doubts training is engaging, proactive doubts ROI can be proven, these are different enough to need different proof).

Example matrix for cybersecurity training:

Compliance-driven: LinkedIn ads (1,500 visitors/month, high message distance from other segments) = needs dedicated page. Google search "compliance training" (800 visitors/month, similar message to LinkedIn) = shares same page as LinkedIn. Remarketing (200 visitors/month, low volume) = can share with LinkedIn page.

Result: One compliance-driven page serves LinkedIn, Google, and remarketing traffic. All three campaigns target solution-aware compliance-focused buyers. Message distance between these campaigns is low (all about speed and checkbox compliance), so one page works.

Breach-reactive: Remarketing only (300 visitors/month, high message distance from compliance-driven, but low volume). Build separate page? Borderline. If budget allows and this segment has high deal value, yes. If budget tight, could initially share with compliance page and split later when volume grows.

Proactive: Content marketing (600 visitors/month), organic search (400 visitors/month), LinkedIn thought leadership (300 visitors/month). Combined 1,300 visitors/month, high message distance from compliance-driven (need ROI proof and behaviour metrics, not speed and compliance). Build separate page.

Result: Three pages total (compliance, breach-reactive if budget allows, proactive). Could be two pages if budget tight (compliance + proactive, skip breach-reactive for now).

Don't assume every segment needs a separate page. Segments can share pages when belief gaps are close, even if segment names are different.

Share pages when: Doubts are similar (both segments doubt effectiveness, just for slightly different reasons), proof type is the same (both need data and metrics, or both need testimonials), awareness stage is the same (both are solution-aware comparing vendors), deal size is similar (both are £10K deals, not one £5K and one £50K).

Example: Compliance-driven and breach-reactive both need fast deployment. Compliance-driven wants "complete training in 30 minutes". Breach-reactive wants "set up today, team trained tomorrow". These are close enough to share a page focused on speed, with sections addressing both situations.

Separate pages when: Doubts are fundamentally different (one doubts if solution works at all, other doubts if they can afford it), proof type differs significantly (one needs data, other needs process walkthrough), awareness stages differ (one is problem-aware needing education, other is product-aware needing feature comparison), messaging that convinces one segment actively repels the other.

Example: Compliance-driven and proactive cannot share a page. Compliance-driven doesn't care about behaviour change (sees training as checkbox). Proactive cares deeply about behaviour change (building business case on ROI). A page emphasising behaviour metrics bores compliance-driven. A page emphasising speed and compliance checkbox annoys proactive ("that's not the point"). These segments need separate pages.

Test shared pages first: if you're unsure whether two segments can share, start with one page serving both. Track conversion rate by segment. If both segments convert at similar rates (within 20% of each other), they can share. If one segment converts at 5% and the other at 1.5%, they need separate pages.

For each segment-specific page, structure content to address that segment's specific doubt with appropriate proof type.

Compliance-driven page structure: Headline emphasising speed ("Complete SOC 2 training in 30 minutes"). Above-the-fold value prop about ease and compliance satisfaction. Social proof: "Used by 230 financial services firms" (peer validation). Proof type: compliance certifications and auditor acceptance ("Satisfies SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR requirements"). Objection handling: "Zero IT setup", "Works in any browser", "Integrates with your SSO". Detail level: low (they don't want lengthy explanations, they want fast checkbox solution). CTA: "Start free trial" or "Book setup demo" (hard CTA, they're ready).

Proactive page structure: Headline emphasising measurable impact ("Reduce breach risk with data-driven training"). Above-the-fold value prop about behaviour change and ROI. Social proof: "Reduced security incidents 47% for companies like yours" (outcome validation). Proof type: data and metrics ("Track risky behaviours, measure improvement, prove ROI"). Include behaviour tracking dashboard screenshot, before/after graphs, ROI calculator. Objection handling: "Measure behaviour, not just completion", "Real-time risk scoring", "Executive reports that justify budget". Detail level: high (they want comprehensive understanding to build internal case). CTA: "Download ROI guide" or "See behaviour tracking demo" (softer CTA, they're building case before buying).

Breach-reactive page structure: Headline emphasising urgency ("Deploy security training today"). Above-the-fold value prop about immediate deployment. Social proof: "Set up in under an hour" (speed proof). Proof type: process walkthrough showing "Upload users → Send invite → Trained by tomorrow" (implementation proof). Objection handling: "No IT involvement", "Instant compliance certificates", "Works on any device". Detail level: medium (they need to see it's truly fast, but don't want lengthy education). CTA: "Start now" or "Book demo today" (hard CTA with urgency).

Match proof placement to reading pattern. Above-the-fold proof (testimonial, stat, logo bar) for credibility. Mid-page proof (case study, data) for those who need convincing. Bottom-page proof (FAQ, detailed specs) for those doing thorough evaluation.

Aim for 3-12 landing pages total. This is the sweet spot where you have enough pages to serve different segments, but few enough to maintain properly and test systematically.

Why not more than 12 pages: Traffic gets too split (if you have 5,000 visitors/month across 15 pages, that's 333 visitors per page, too low to run meaningful tests). Maintenance burden increases (every page needs regular updates, fresh proof, testing). Creative production burden (need unique images, copy, examples for each page). Difficult to keep messaging consistent (15 pages saying slightly different things, message drift).

Why not fewer than 3 pages: Too generic (one page trying to serve compliance-driven, proactive, and breach-reactive segments ends up convincing none of them). Miss segment-specific opportunities (compliance-driven would convert at 6% with dedicated page, but converts at 2% on generic page). Can't match campaigns to segments (LinkedIn ads to compliance segment landing on same page as content marketing to proactive segment, message mismatch).

The 3-12 range typically maps to: 1 page per major segment (3-5 segments) + 1-2 campaign-specific pages (like remarketing page different from cold traffic page) + 1 pricing page + 1 demo/trial page = 6-10 pages. This covers most situations.

Maintain pages systematically: quarterly review of all landing pages (update proof, refresh testimonials, check for broken elements), monthly performance review (which pages converting well, which need optimisation), continuous testing (always have 1-2 tests running on highest-traffic pages). Don't build pages then abandon them. Treat them as living assets.

Version control: when you update a page, document what changed and why. Track performance before and after updates. If you update proof section and conversion drops, you can revert. If you update headline and conversion improves, you've learned something to apply elsewhere.

Build new landing pages only where volume and message distance justify it. Use segment × campaign matrix to calculate requirements. High volume (>1,000 visitors/month) + high message distance (different belief gaps) = separate page needed.

Segments can share pages when belief gaps are close, even if segment names differ. Separate pages when doubts are fundamentally different or messaging that convinces one segment repels another. Test shared pages first, split if conversion rates differ by >20%.

Structure pages per segment with appropriate proof type. Compliance-driven needs speed proof and compliance certifications. Proactive needs data and ROI metrics. Breach-reactive needs urgency and process walkthrough. Match proof placement to reading pattern.

Limit total pages to 3-12 for maintainability. Fewer than 3 is too generic. More than 12 splits traffic too thin and creates maintenance burden. Maintain pages systematically with quarterly reviews and continuous testing.

Next chapter: A/B test systematically to improve pages over time.