The highest-earning pages on the site hadn't been redesigned in years. We replaced guesswork with a structured testing programme, and proved the revenue impact in the client's own financial reporting.
Key bottom-of-funnel pages, the ones like “Top Online Casinos UK”, were carrying a high volume of traffic and doing most of the site's commercial work. They were also the pages that had gone longest without attention: the design, layout and copy hadn't been meaningfully updated in a while.
The client knew there was upside there. What they didn't have was evidence. Nobody could say with confidence which elements of those pages were driving clickouts, which were being ignored, and which were actively getting in the way. That made every proposed improvement a judgement call rather than a decision.
So the brief had two halves that pulled against each other: improve clickout percentage, but don't harm existing conversion in the process. Any approach that treated the page as a blank canvas was off the table.
We proposed a CRO programme rather than a redesign. The first step was a full review of the existing pages: content, design and information architecture, to understand what the pages were actually asking users to do and where that broke down.
That review produced a backlog of hypotheses, which we then worked through systematically rather than all at once. Each test was designed to answer a specific question about what drives user conversion, so that even a losing test left the client knowing something they didn't know before.
A structured audit of the existing BOFU pages: what's on them, how it's ordered, and what the layout is implicitly prioritising versus what actually drives a clickout.
Findings turned into a prioritised list of testable hypotheses, each with a clear statement of what we believed was happening and what we expected the change to do.
Tests run in sequence with proper traffic allocation and runtime, so results were statistically valid and each one built on what the previous test taught us.
Clickout rate was the primary metric, but existing conversion was monitored alongside it on every test, so no winning variant was shipped at the expense of the thing it was meant to protect.
A/B testing data collection was integrated with the client's financial reporting, so experiment results could be expressed in revenue rather than percentage points alone.
Over a three-month period we ran dozens of tests, resulting in a significant 22% increase in clickouts from the key BOFU pages, with existing conversion held intact.
Because we'd integrated A/B testing data collection with the client's financial reporting, the programme could be reported as an exact revenue uplift rather than an estimate. That changed the conversation internally: CRO stopped being a cost line and became something with a demonstrable return attached to it.
That knowledge outlasts the engagement. Every future page the team builds starts from an evidence base rather than a blank sheet, and the testing infrastructure is in place to keep answering the next question.
Increase in clickouts from the key bottom-of-funnel pages
Revenue uplift reported, via testing data integrated with financial reporting
Cost to existing conversion, protected as a guardrail metric throughout
The same process is available as a standalone engagement: audit, hypothesis backlog, structured testing and analysis, with tracking fixed first so you're testing against accurate data.
Content, design and IA reviewed against what the data says users actually do.
Sequenced experiments with valid runtimes, not a scattergun of simultaneous changes.
Protecting what already works while pushing on what doesn't.
Test results tied to financial data, so uplift is measured in pounds.
That's usually where the biggest uplift is hiding. Start with a CRO audit and we'll tell you what's worth testing first.