Determine which pages to build

Not every segment or campaign needs a dedicated landing page. Building 30 different pages spreads your optimisation effort too thin. Sending all traffic to one generic page kills conversion because different segments need different proof.

The decision is volume and message distance. High traffic campaigns with significantly different messaging justify dedicated pages. Low traffic campaigns with similar messaging share pages.

This chapter shows you how to map segments against campaigns, identify which combinations need separate pages, and prioritise by traffic to keep total pages manageable.

‍

List your segments from playbook 1 down the left side. List your active campaigns from playbook 2 across the top. Mark which campaigns reach which segments.

Cybersecurity training example:

Compliance-driven appears in three campaigns (LinkedIn, search, industry sites). Breach-reactive only in remarketing. Proactive in two campaigns (LinkedIn, industry sites).

Lead gen tools example:

‍

Paid-skeptic appears in three campaigns. LinkedIn-first in two. List-skeptic in two. Tool-chooser in two.

This matrix shows you where each segment appears across your campaigns. Next step: determine if each segment needs a dedicated page or if multiple segments can share.

Two criteria determine if a segment needs dedicated page: traffic volume and message distance.

Traffic volume threshold: If a segment drives less than 500 visitors per month across all campaigns, it probably doesn't justify dedicated page. Share a page with similar segment. If it drives 1,000+ visitors monthly, dedicated page is worth the effort.

Message distance: If two segments have significantly different belief gaps, they need different pages. Compliance-driven doubts training effectiveness. Breach-reactive needs speed proof. Those are different enough to justify separate pages even if traffic is moderate.

Pull traffic estimates from your channel plan (playbook 2). Example:

Cybersecurity training monthly traffic:

• Compliance-driven: 1,800 visitors (LinkedIn 800 + Google search 600 + industry sites 400)
• Breach-reactive: 400 visitors (remarketing only)
• Proactive: 1,200 visitors (LinkedIn 700 + industry sites 500)

Decision matrix:

• Compliance-driven: HIGH volume (1,800), needs dedicated page
• Breach-reactive: LOW volume (400) but HIGH message distance (urgency focus vs compliance focus), dedicated page justified
• Proactive: HIGH volume (1,200), HIGH message distance (ROI focus), dedicated page justified

Result: 3 dedicated pages needed.

Lead gen tools monthly traffic:

• Paid-skeptic: 2,200 visitors (LinkedIn 900 + Google 800 + content 500)
• LinkedIn-first: 900 visitors (LinkedIn 600 + content 300)
• List-skeptic: 800 visitors (content 500 + remarketing 300)
• Tool-chooser: 1,100 visitors (Google 700 + remarketing 400)

Decision matrix:

• Paid-skeptic: HIGH volume (2,200), HIGH message distance (economic comparison focus), dedicated page
• LinkedIn-first: MEDIUM volume (900), HIGH message distance (channel comparison focus), dedicated page
• List-skeptic: MEDIUM volume (800), MEDIUM message distance (could potentially share with paid-skeptic as both are skeptics), test dedicated first
• Tool-chooser: HIGH volume (1,100), HIGH message distance (vendor comparison focus), dedicated page

Result: 4 dedicated pages (could test combining list-skeptic with paid-skeptic if resources limited).

Apply this framework to your segments. High volume alone doesn't justify page if message distance is low. High message distance alone doesn't justify page if volume is tiny (under 300 monthly). Both criteria together create clear need.

‍

Rank your required pages by monthly traffic volume. Build highest traffic pages first.

Cybersecurity training priority:

1. Compliance-driven (1,800 visitors/month) - build first
2. Proactive (1,200 visitors/month) - build second
3. Breach-reactive (400 visitors/month) - build third

Start with compliance-driven page. Once it's live and converting, build proactive. Once both are converting above 3%, build breach-reactive.

Lead gen tools priority:

1. Paid-skeptic (2,200 visitors/month) - build first
2. Tool-chooser (1,100 visitors/month) - build second
3. LinkedIn-first (900 visitors/month) - build third
4. List-skeptic (800 visitors/month) - build fourth or combine with paid-skeptic initially

If you're launching with limited resources, build the top 3 only. Send list-skeptic traffic to paid-skeptic page temporarily (both are skeptics, similar enough messaging). Once top 3 are optimised, add the fourth page.

Page limit rationale:

Fewer than 3 pages means you're not segmenting enough. Different belief gaps need different pages. Generic pages kill conversion.

More than 12 pages means you're over-segmenting. Optimisation effort spreads too thin. You can't A/B test effectively across 20 pages. Pick the highest-impact segments and build excellent pages rather than mediocre pages for every micro-segment.

Ideal range: 3 to 6 pages for most B2B businesses. Add pages only when traffic justifies the optimisation investment.

‍

For each page you're building, document the segment, belief gap, required proof, and CTA.

Compliance-driven page (/compliance):

• Segment: Compliance officers, risk managers buying for regulatory requirements
• Belief gap: Doubt training creates behaviour change auditors validate
• Required proof: Pass rates (87%), client count (204 companies), timeline (94 days average), audit-passing case studies
• CTA: "See case studies" (they're risk-averse, need social proof before demo)
• Traffic sources: LinkedIn proof ads, Google search "ISO 27001 training", industry compliance sites

Breach-reactive page (/breach-prevention):

• Segment: CEOs, security leads responding to recent incident
• Belief gap: Need fast vendor, doubt implementation speed
• Required proof: Timeline (14-day implementation), incident prevention data (40% faster recovery), urgency-focused case studies
• CTA: "Book demo" (high urgency, ready to buy fast)
• Traffic sources: Remarketing to site visitors who viewed incident content

Proactive page (/security-culture):

• Segment: CSOs, executives building long-term security culture
• Belief gap: Need ROI proof for board justification
• Required proof: ROI data, behaviour metrics (73% phishing reduction), board-ready business case, executive testimonials
• CTA: "Download business case" (they need to convince others, want materials)
• Traffic sources: LinkedIn ROI-focused ads, industry sites, webinars

Paid-skeptic page (/outbound-roi):

• Segment: Marketers frustrated with paid ad economics
• Belief gap: Doubt outbound delivers better CAC than paid
• Required proof: Economic comparison (£50 CAC vs £400), channel comparison data, switched-from-paid case studies
• CTA: "Start trial" (ready to test alternative)
• Traffic sources: LinkedIn comparison ads, Google "alternative to paid ads", content comparing channels

LinkedIn-first page (/email-vs-linkedin):

• Segment: Marketers believing LinkedIn beats email for B2B
• Belief gap: Doubt email deliverability and scale vs LinkedIn
• Required proof: Deliverability stats (94% inbox vs LinkedIn spam rates), response rate comparison (email 12% vs LinkedIn 8%), volume limits comparison (2,000 daily vs 100 weekly)
• CTA: "See comparison" then "Book demo" (need education first)
• Traffic sources: LinkedIn ads addressing deliverability, content about email vs LinkedIn

List-skeptic page (/list-building):

• Segment: Marketers doubting list building ROI vs buying data
• Belief gap: Doubt 40-hour time investment worth it
• Required proof: Response rate comparison (12% vs 0.8%), time-to-ROI breakdown (40 hours = 12 months better results), data quality comparison
• CTA: "Download guide" (need education on process)
• Traffic sources: Content about list building, remarketing to guide readers

Tool-chooser page (/compare-tools):

• Segment: Marketers choosing between Lemlist, Instantly, Apollo
• Belief gap: Need vendor differentiation and feature comparison
• Required proof: Head-to-head deliverability test (Lemlist 94% vs Apollo 87%), feature comparison table, use-case framework
• CTA: "Start trial" (ready to test, need to experience it)
• Traffic sources: Google "Lemlist vs Apollo", comparison content, remarketing

This documentation drives the next chapter. You know what each page needs to prove and which CTA matches the segment's readiness.

‍

You now have a matrix showing which segments need dedicated pages, priority order by traffic, and documented requirements per page. Build highest-traffic pages first. Limit total pages to 3 to 12 to maintain optimisation focus. Next chapter: optimise the four core elements of each page.