Low-friction custom landing pages for a payment processor: +11% CVR
Test run byKlientBoostCRO agency
Commentary byLiftArchiveOur analysis, not theirsMerchant One's conversion rate rose 11% and cost per acquisition fell 28% after KlientBoost sent paid traffic to custom landing pages that asked for less up front.
KlientBoost ran the work for the merchant payment processor and published it as a PDF case study.
The pages launched together with single keyword ad groups and a push for higher-quality traffic, so the result belongs to the full package.
- Conversion rate: up 11%, a moderate gain for the whole engagement.
- Conversion volume: up 130% month over month in the first month.
- Cost per acquisition: down 28%, and cost per click fell 21%.
- Lead quality: the client says bad leads nearly disappeared for about three months. This is a testimonial, not a measured figure.
The change
A lighter first step above the fold, with detail pushed lower.
Simplified mockup drawn by LiftArchive from the shared screenshots.
Control
Paid clicks went to the company's earlier pages, and the sales team was struggling to get qualified leads.
Variant
Custom landing pages used what KlientBoost calls the iceberg approach: less friction above the fold, with more detail further down. The account also moved to single keyword ad groups aimed at higher-quality traffic.
Why it likely won
Our reading of the result, not the practitioner's claim.
- Merchants comparing processors can be wary of a big form, so asking for less above the fold makes the first step feel easy.
- Keeping detail lower on the page still lets careful buyers find rates and terms before they commit.
- Single keyword ad groups likely filtered out poor-fit searchers, which explains much of the lead quality gain.
- The small rate lift next to a big volume jump suggests most growth came from the traffic side.
Caveats: This is an agency-reported before-and-after result from a full paid-search engagement, not a split test. Ads, keywords, targeting and landing pages all changed together, no sample size or significance was shared, and the date is not stated. The lead quality claim comes from a client testimonial, not a tracked metric.
Who ran it
KlientBoost ran this test for merchant payment processor and published the results (KlientBoost case study (PDF)). The numbers are theirs; the summary and commentary on this page are ours.
Read the original case study on KlientBoost →
How to run this test on your site
- Hypothesis
- If we cut the fields and content above the fold to a short first step and move the detail lower, then more merchants will start an application because the first ask feels small.
- Primary metric
- Lead form starts and completions per paid visitor
- Guardrails
- Cost per lead
- Qualified lead rate from sales
- Lead-to-account close rate
- Who should test it
- B2B financial and payment services that rely on sales calls after a form. If your buyers need pricing before they share details, hiding too much may backfire.
Questions
What is the iceberg approach on a landing page?
It is KlientBoost's name for showing only a light first step above the fold and keeping the detail lower down.
Visitors start with a small ask and can scroll for more.
Do shorter forms lower lead quality?
They can, since fewer questions screen out fewer people.
Pair a short first step with good ad targeting, and track qualified leads, not just form fills.
How should payment processors measure lead quality?
Ask sales to tag each lead as qualified or not, then report the share by landing page and campaign.
That shows whether a lift in leads is real.
Similar tests
KlientBoostKlientBoostKlientBoostKlientBoostKlientBoostKlientBoost