Non-blocking cookie banner instead of a consent wall: +32% conversion
Test run byBlend CommerceCRO agency
Commentary byLiftArchiveOur analysis, not theirsReplacing a cookie consent screen that blocked shopping with a slim banner raised conversion rate by 32% on a sports nutrition brand's UK site.
Blend Commerce ran this A/B/C test on both the UK and Ireland sites.
A bottom banner won in the UK, while a top banner won in Ireland with a 10.51% lift.
- UK, bottom banner: conversion rate +32%, bounce rate -22% and revenue per visitor +5%.
- Ireland, top banner: conversion rate +10.51%, bounce rate -9% and revenue per visitor +6%.
- Different variants won on each site, so each country got its own winner.
- Cookie consent rate was not reported. A non-blocking banner likely lowers it.
The change
Blocking consent screen replaced by a slim banner; bottom version shown (UK winner).
Simplified mockup drawn by LiftArchive from the shared screenshots.
Control
A cookie consent screen that stopped visitors from shopping until they made a choice.
Variant
Two versions of a non-blocking cookie banner that let visitors keep shopping: one at the top of the page and one at the bottom.
Why it likely won
Our reading of the result, not the practitioner's claim.
- A blocking screen is a hurdle before the visitor has seen any products, and some people leave instead.
- Letting people browse first removes that early friction, which matches the drop in bounce rate.
- The best position varied by site, which suggests layout details matter. It may depend on what the banner covers on each page.
Caveats: Each site ran for two weeks; sample sizes and confidence were not shared. The change likely lowers cookie consent rates, so check your local privacy rules and the effect on tracking before copying it.
Who ran it
Blend Commerce ran this test for a sports nutrition brand and published the results (Blend Commerce A/B test). The numbers are theirs; the summary and commentary on this page are ours.
Read the original case study on Blend Commerce →
How to run this test on your store
- Hypothesis
- If we replace a blocking cookie screen with a banner that lets people keep shopping, then more visitors will buy because they can browse right away.
- Primary metric
- Conversion rate
- Guardrails
- Cookie consent rate
- Bounce rate
- Share of sessions with full tracking data
- Who should test it
- Stores that currently use a full-screen or blocking cookie wall. Check what your privacy rules require first. If you rely heavily on consented data for ad targeting, the drop in consent rate may cost more than the conversion gain.
Questions
Does a cookie consent wall hurt conversion rate?
In this test, removing a blocking consent screen raised conversion rate by 32% in the UK and 10.51% in Ireland.
A wall adds a step before shoppers see anything.
Should a cookie banner go at the top or bottom of the page?
It depends on the site. Here the bottom banner won in the UK and the top banner won in Ireland, so it is worth testing both.
Will a non-blocking cookie banner lower my consent rate?
Likely, since people can ignore it. The agency noted the brand could switch back to the blocking design during campaigns where consent matters more.
Similar tests
OptiMonk
ConvertiblesConvertibles
@DaveDiederenBlend Commerce
Clean Commit