# Rebuilt subscription offer page: 0.24% to 0.27%, not significant

- Outcome: Flat / inconclusive
- Page type: Pricing page (SaaS)
- Elements: Copy, Form, Plans
- Date shared: 2008
- Test run by: [MarketingExperiments](https://liftarchive.com/practitioners/marketingexperiments/)
- Commentary by: LiftArchive (our analysis, not theirs)
- Original source: https://marketingexperiments.com/a-b-testing/measuring-what-matters
- Page: https://liftarchive.com/test/financial-info-subscription-offer-page-redesign/

A rebuilt offer page for a financial information subscription moved paid conversion from 0.24% to 0.27%, a difference that was not statistically significant. MECLABS ran the test for a business selling financial information subscriptions, published on MarketingExperiments. Many changes shipped together, so the page as a whole is what was tested.

## Result

**0.24% to 0.27%, not significant**

- Paid conversion went from 0.24% (238 of 98,723 visitors) to 0.27% (204 of 76,094). This was not significant, so treat it as flat.
- The bigger finding was plan value: on the control page, annual plans earned $1.07 in lifetime value per visit against $0.11 for monthly.
- On the new page, the annual plan with trial earned $0.44 per visit, the annual no-trial plan $0.64, and monthly $0.16.
- Annual subscribers stayed about 1.5 years versus about 3 months for monthly, per the source.

## Control

The existing offer page sold the subscription with a $59.95 monthly plan and a $399.95 annual plan, both with a free trial.

## Variant

The page had rewritten copy, a new layout and email capture form, revised calls-to-action and a shorter order path. It also added a $399.95 annual plan with no free trial.

## Why it likely came out this way (our reading)

- Bundling many changes can cancel out: some may have helped while others hurt.
- Adding a third plan split demand, and the annual-with-trial option lost share on the new page.
- Conversion rate alone hid the fact that plan mix drives revenue, since annual buyers were worth far more.

## Caveats

Many changes were bundled, and the conversion difference was not statistically significant. The data is from 2008.

## How to run this test

- Hypothesis: If we rewrite the offer page, shorten the order path and steer buyers toward annual plans, then revenue per visitor will rise because annual subscribers stay much longer than monthly ones.
- Primary metric: Lifetime value per visitor
- Guardrail: Paid conversion rate
- Guardrail: Plan mix (annual vs monthly)
- Guardrail: Trial-to-paid rate
- Who should test it: SaaS and subscription businesses that offer both monthly and annual plans. Measure value per visitor, not just conversion. It matters less if you sell only one plan or retention is similar across plans.

---

Credit: MarketingExperiments ran this test and owns the result. Summary and commentary by LiftArchive (https://liftarchive.com/test/financial-info-subscription-offer-page-redesign/).
Usage: Free to use, quote and build on, with credit and a link: name the practitioner or organization that ran the test and link to its LiftArchive page. The results belong to the practitioners who ran and shared them; the summaries and commentary are LiftArchive's.