Simpler date-of-birth field on energy sign-up form: +16.3% sign-ups
Commentary byLiftArchiveOur analysis, not theirsReplacing a clumsy calendar picker on the date-of-birth field with a plain, auto-formatted text input lifted sign-ups by 16.3%.
Vandebron, a Dutch green energy supplier, ran this A/B test on the last step of its contract sign-up form, and it was published as a VWO case study.
Drop-offs on the date field fell by 80%.
- Sign-ups: +16.3%. This was the main goal.
- Exit rate on the final registration step: -8.5%.
- Drop-offs on the date-of-birth field: -80%.
- Time spent on the date-of-birth field: -77%, so people got through it much faster.
- Sample size and test length were not shared.
The change
The calendar picker is replaced by a typed date field that adds slashes automatically.
Simplified mockup drawn by LiftArchive from the shared screenshots.
Control
The final registration step asked for date of birth with a calendar dropdown that opened on the year 2000 and could only move one month at a time. The typed input gave no help with formatting, so people had to add the slashes themselves.
Variant
The calendar dropdown was removed. The placeholder showed the expected date format, and slashes were inserted automatically as people typed.
Why it likely won
Our reading of the result, not the practitioner's claim.
- Before the test, form analytics showed the field had a 42% drop-off rate and a 98% refill rate, so it was clearly the main point of friction.
- Someone born in the 1950s would have had to click back through hundreds of months to reach their birth date in the old picker.
- Typing a familiar date is quick, and auto-inserted slashes remove the guesswork about format.
- The visitors on this step were already close to signing, so removing one obstacle saved a lot of high-intent leads.
Caveats: Sample size, test length and confidence level were not shared. The three fixes to the field shipped together, so they can't be credited separately.
Who ran it
Vandebron ran this test and published the results (VWO case study). The numbers are theirs; the summary and commentary on this page are ours.
Read the original case study on Vandebron →
How to run this test on your site
- Hypothesis
- If we replace the date-picker on our date-of-birth field with a plain text input that formats itself, then more people will finish the form because entering a familiar date will take seconds instead of many clicks.
- Primary metric
- Completed sign-ups or form submissions
- Guardrails
- Invalid or mistyped date entries
- Field-level drop-off rate
- Downstream contract or lead approval rate
- Who should test it
- Lead-gen and sign-up forms that ask for a birth date, such as energy, insurance, finance or health services. It matters less if your date field already accepts typed input with clear formatting, or if you don't need the birth date at all.
Questions
Should I use a date picker for date of birth?
Usually not. A birth date is something people know by heart, so typing it is faster than scrolling a calendar.
Vandebron saw sign-ups rise 16.3% after dropping the picker.
How do I find which form field is hurting conversions?
Look at field-level drop-off, refill rates and time spent per field, then watch session recordings of that field.
Vandebron found its problem field this way before testing a fix.
When does a date picker make sense?
For dates close to today, such as a booking or a start date.
Vandebron plans to keep a picker for near-future dates and a plain input for birthdays.