Optimise landing page elements

Landing page structure is simple. Four elements drive 80% of conversion: above-the-fold, messaging, proof, and CTA. Get these right and your page converts. Get them wrong and traffic bounces.

Above-the-fold must match the ad promise and show clear value in 3 seconds. Messaging must address the specific belief gap your segment has. Proof must use the type that resonates with that segment (data for analysts, testimonials for social proof seekers, process for implementation-worried). CTA must match their readiness (demo for hot traffic, guide for cold traffic).

This chapter shows you how to optimise each element with examples per segment.

‍

Above-the-fold is what appears before scrolling. On desktop, that's roughly 600 pixels. On mobile (60% of traffic), that's the first screen. You have 3 seconds before they bounce.

Three requirements:

Headline matches ad promise. If ad said "87% pass ISO 27001 first time", headline must reference that stat. If ad said "£50 CAC vs £400", headline must show that comparison. Message match prevents bounce.

Value proposition answers "what's in it for me" instantly. Don't make them hunt for why they should care. State the outcome clearly.

CTA is visible without scrolling. Button or form should appear in the first screen. Don't hide it below three paragraphs of copy.

Compliance-driven page above-the-fold:

Headline: "87% of clients pass ISO 27001 audits first time"(Matches the proof ad stat that drove traffic here)

Subhead: "Behaviour change that auditors validate. Average timeline: 94 days from training start to certification."(Value prop: you'll pass audits, it takes 94 days, auditors will validate it)

CTA: "See case studies" button, prominent placement(Risk-averse buyers need social proof before contact)

Visual: Large "87%" stat with client logos arranged around it, clean professional design

Breach-reactive page above-the-fold:

Headline: "Full implementation in 14 days"(Matches the speed promise from urgency-focused ads)

Subhead: "Incident response training deployed in 2 weeks. Your team prepared for next incident, board satisfied you've acted."(Value prop: speed + board satisfaction + team readiness)

CTA: "Book demo" button, urgent colour (red or orange)(Hot traffic, high urgency, ready to buy now)

Visual: Timeline showing Day 1 to Day 14 with checkpoints

Paid-skeptic page above-the-fold:

Headline: "Email outbound: £50 CAC vs £400 on paid ads"(Matches the economic comparison from ads)

Subhead: "Same targeting, 1/8th the cost, owned channel. See how 204 B2B companies replaced paid spend with email."(Value prop: cheaper, you own it, proven by others)

CTA: "See the breakdown" then secondary "Start trial"(Analytical buyers want data first, then they'll try)

Visual: Side-by-side bar chart showing £400 vs £50 CAC

LinkedIn-first page above-the-fold:

Headline: "Email deliverability: 94% inbox. LinkedIn: spam filtered."(Matches the deliverability comparison from ads)

Subhead: "LinkedIn automation triggers spam filters. Email with proper setup hits inbox 94% of the time. Send 2,000 daily vs 100 weekly."(Value prop: better deliverability, 20x volume)

CTA: "See deliverability comparison"(Need education before demo request)

Visual: Inbox vs spam folder graphic showing percentages

Mobile optimisation: Test every above-the-fold section on actual mobile device. Headline must be readable without zooming. CTA button must be tappable (minimum 44x44 pixels). Value prop must fit on screen without scrolling.

‍

Your messaging throughout the page must speak directly to what this segment doubts. Don't use generic benefit copy. Address their specific missing assumption.

Compliance-driven messaging (doubt: training effectiveness):

Section 1: "Why auditors validate our training"Content: Explain how behaviour change gets measured (phishing simulation scores, incident reporting rates, security awareness quiz results). Show what auditors actually check during ISO 27001 assessment. Prove training creates verifiable behaviour change, not just completion certificates.

Section 2: "204 companies certified, 87% first-time pass rate"Content: Client logos, industry breakdown (fintech, healthcare, manufacturing), case study excerpts from compliance officers. Social proof that others in similar situations succeeded.

Section 3: "94-day average timeline: what to expect"Content: Week-by-week breakdown. Week 1-2: setup and team onboarding. Week 3-8: training delivery. Week 9-12: assessment and documentation. Week 13: audit preparation. Demystify the process, show it's manageable.

Breach-reactive messaging (doubt: implementation speed):

Section 1: "Your timeline: breach on Monday, action needed by Friday"Content: Acknowledge their urgency. Board wants response plan immediately. Employees need training now. You can't wait 6 months for rollout.

Section 2: "14-day implementation: day by day"Content: Contract Monday, onboarding Wednesday, first training Friday, full programme running second Monday. Show specific timeline with dates, not vague "we move fast" claims.

Section 3: "40% faster breach recovery with trained teams"Content: Data from incident response across 50+ companies. Trained teams identify threats faster, report incidents immediately, follow protocols without confusion. Recovery time cut from 8 days to 5 days average.

Paid-skeptic messaging (doubt: outbound ROI vs paid ads):

Section 1: "The paid ads trap: rising costs, owned by platforms"Content: Show CAC trend over 12 months (£280 to £400). Show what happens if Google raises prices another 20% (£480 CAC). Show that stopping paid means zero leads because you own nothing.

Section 2: "Email outbound economics: year one vs year three"Content: Year one: £12k list building + £6k tools = £18k total, 180 customers at £100 CAC. Year two: £0 new list building + £6k tools = £6k, 200 customers at £30 CAC (list already built). Year three: same £6k, 220 customers at £27 CAC. Show compounding advantage.

Section 3: "Case studies: companies that switched"Content: 3 to 4 case studies from companies that replaced paid spend. Before CAC, after CAC, timeline to break even, owned asset value.

List-skeptic messaging (doubt: list building time investment):

Section 1: "40 hours to build list: what you actually do"Content: Hour-by-hour breakdown. Hours 1-10: define ICP and research sources. Hours 10-25: gather contacts from LinkedIn, company sites, events. Hours 25-35: enrich and verify data. Hours 35-40: segment and load into tool. Show it's not 40 hours of tedious manual work, it's structured research.

Section 2: "12% response rate vs 0.8%: why built lists win"Content: Built lists are targeted (you chose each contact). Purchased lists are generic (scraped data, half outdated). Built lists use current info (LinkedIn profiles, company sites). Purchased lists have wrong contacts (people who left 2 years ago). Show the quality difference with side-by-side examples.

Section 3: "ROI timeline: when built lists pay off"Content: Month 1-2: building list, no results yet. Month 3: first campaign, 12% response, 15 meetings. Month 4-12: ongoing campaigns, 120 meetings total. Compare to purchased: 0.8% response, 8 meetings over 12 months. 40 hours investment = 15x better results.

Each section addresses the specific doubt. Compliance-driven gets proof of effectiveness. Breach-reactive gets speed proof. Paid-skeptic gets economics. List-skeptic gets time ROI. Generic messaging ("our training is great" or "our tool is powerful") doesn't close belief gaps.

Different segments trust different proof. Analytical buyers want data. Social proof seekers want testimonials. Implementation-worried buyers want process transparency.

Data proof (for analytical segments like paid-skeptic, tool-chooser):

Format: Stats, charts, comparison tables, test resultsExample for paid-skeptic: "50,000 emails tested over 30 days. Paid ads: £400 CAC, 120 customers. Email: £100 CAC, 180 customers. Half the cost, 50% more volume."Why it works: Numbers are objective. Analytical buyers trust data over claims.

Testimonial proof (for risk-averse segments like compliance-driven):

Format: Customer quotes, video testimonials, case studies with named clientsExample for compliance-driven: "Before working with Solid Growth, we failed two ISO audits. Their training programme changed employee behaviour in ways our previous vendor never achieved. We passed on the first attempt after implementing their approach." - Sarah Mitchell, Compliance Director, FinTech CompanyWhy it works: Social proof reduces perceived risk. If others like them succeeded, they can too.

Process proof (for implementation-worried segments like breach-reactive, list-skeptic):

Format: Step-by-step breakdowns, timelines, workflow diagramsExample for breach-reactive: "Day 1: Contract signed, team access granted. Day 3: All employees enrolled in platform. Day 7: First training session delivered. Day 10: Incident response simulation run. Day 14: Full programme operational, metrics dashboard live."Why it works: Transparency about process reduces fear of complexity or delay.

Mixing proof types:

Most pages benefit from multiple proof types. Lead with what your segment values most, support with secondary proof.

Compliance-driven page:

• Primary: Testimonials from compliance officers (risk reduction)
• Secondary: Data (87% pass rate, 94-day timeline)
• Tertiary: Process (what auditors check, how training delivers it)

Paid-skeptic page:

• Primary: Data (economic comparison, CAC breakdown)
• Secondary: Case studies with numbers (company X reduced CAC from £380 to £55)
• Tertiary: Process (how list building works, timeline to results)

Tool-chooser page:

• Primary: Data (head-to-head deliverability test, feature comparison table)
• Secondary: Process (how Lemlist's domain warming works vs Apollo's shared infrastructure)
• Tertiary: Testimonials (users who switched and saw results)

Don't use equal amounts of each. Lead with what closes the belief gap fastest for that segment.

‍

CTA must match where the segment sits in their buying journey. Hot traffic ready to buy gets "Book demo" or "Start trial". Cold traffic still learning gets "Download guide" or "See comparison".

High-readiness CTAs (product-aware, hot traffic):

"Book demo" - Breach-reactive (urgent need, ready to evaluate vendor)"Start trial" - Tool-chooser (ready to test product)"Get certified" - Compliance-driven with deadline (need solution now)

These CTAs ask for commitment (meeting, trial sign-up). Only use when segment is ready to evaluate vendors, not when they're still deciding on solution category.

Medium-readiness CTAs (solution-aware, warm traffic):

"See case studies" - Compliance-driven (need social proof before meeting)"Download business case" - Proactive (need materials to convince board)"See the breakdown" - Paid-skeptic (want economic details before trial)

These CTAs offer value without commitment. Buyer gets educational material, you get contact info, nurture sequence starts.

Low-readiness CTAs (problem-aware, cold traffic):

"Read the guide" - List-skeptic (still learning about list building)"Watch the comparison" - LinkedIn-first (need education on email vs LinkedIn)"Download the framework" - Any segment needing category education

These CTAs are pure education. No product pitch yet. Build trust first, then move them through nurture.

Multi-CTA strategy:

Most pages should have primary and secondary CTAs. Primary for ready buyers, secondary for browsers.

Paid-skeptic page:

• Primary CTA: "Start trial" (above fold, prominent)
• Secondary CTA: "Download economics breakdown" (after case studies section)
• Tertiary CTA: "See customer results" (footer)

This catches buyers at different readiness. Hot prospects hit trial. Warm prospects download guide. Cold prospects browse case studies.

Compliance-driven page:

• Primary CTA: "See case studies" (above fold)
• Secondary CTA: "Download audit preparation checklist" (mid-page)
• Tertiary CTA: "Book demo" (after they've seen proof)

This moves risk-averse buyers gradually. Social proof first, useful resource second, demo request third after trust is built.

Optimise four elements: above-the-fold matches ad promise and shows value instantly, messaging addresses the segment's specific belief gap, proof type matches what that segment trusts (data, testimonials, or process), CTA matches their readiness level. Get these four right and your page converts. Next chapter: A/B test systematically to improve performance.