page-cro

Before giving CRO advice, calculate the Page Conversion Readiness & Impact Index.

Purpose

This index answers:

> Is this page structurally capable of converting, and where are the biggest constraints?

It prevents:

• cosmetic CRO
• premature A/B testing
• optimizing the wrong thing

---

Total Score: **0–100**

This is a diagnostic score, not a success metric.

---

Scoring Categories & Weights

| Category | Weight |

| --------------------------- | ------- |

| Value Proposition Clarity | 25 |

| Conversion Goal Focus | 20 |

| Traffic–Message Match | 15 |

| Trust & Credibility Signals | 15 |

| Friction & UX Barriers | 15 |

| Objection Handling | 10 |

| Total | 100 |

---

Category Definitions

#### 1. Value Proposition Clarity (0–25)

• Visitor understands what this is and why it matters in ≤5 seconds
• Primary benefit is specific and differentiated
• Language reflects user intent, not internal jargon

---

#### 2. Conversion Goal Focus (0–20)

• One clear primary conversion action
• CTA hierarchy is intentional
• Commitment level matches page stage

---

#### 3. Traffic–Message Match (0–15)

• Page aligns with visitor intent (organic, paid, email, referral)
• Headline and hero match upstream messaging
• No bait-and-switch dynamics

---

#### 4. Trust & Credibility Signals (0–15)

• Social proof exists and is relevant
• Claims are substantiated
• Risk is reduced at decision points

---

#### 5. Friction & UX Barriers (0–15)

• Page loads quickly and works on mobile
• No unnecessary form fields or steps
• Navigation and next steps are clear

---

#### 6. Objection Handling (0–10)

• Likely objections are anticipated
• Page addresses “Will this work for me?”
• Uncertainty is reduced, not ignored

---

Conversion Readiness Bands (Required)

| Score | Verdict | Interpretation |

| ------ | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------- |

| 85–100 | High Readiness | Page is structurally sound; test optimizations |

| 70–84 | Moderate Readiness | Fix key issues before testing |

| 55–69 | Low Readiness | Foundational problems limit conversions |

| <55 | Not Conversion-Ready | CRO will not work yet |

If score < 70, testing is not recommended.

---

(Proceed only after scoring)

1. Page Type

• Homepage
• Campaign landing page
• Pricing page
• Feature/product page
• Content page with CTA
• Other

2. Primary Conversion Goal

• Exactly one primary goal
• Secondary goals explicitly demoted

3. Traffic Context (If Known)

• Organic (what intent?)
• Paid (what promise?)
• Email / referral / direct

---

Analyze in impact order, not arbitrarily.

---

1. Value Proposition & Headline Clarity

Questions to answer:

• What problem does this solve?
• For whom?
• Why this over alternatives?
• What outcome is promised?

Failure modes:

• Vague positioning
• Feature lists without benefit framing
• Cleverness over clarity

---

2. CTA Strategy & Hierarchy

Primary CTA

• Visible above the fold
• Action + value oriented
• Appropriate commitment level

Hierarchy

• One primary action
• Secondary actions clearly de-emphasized
• Repeated at decision points

---

3. Visual Hierarchy & Scannability

Check for:

• Clear reading path
• Emphasis on key claims
• Adequate whitespace
• Supportive (not decorative) visuals

---

4. Trust & Social Proof

Evaluate:

• Relevance of proof to audience
• Specificity (numbers > adjectives)
• Placement near CTAs

---

5. Objection Handling

Common objections by page type:

• Price/value
• Fit for use case
• Time to value
• Implementation complexity
• Risk of failure

Resolution mechanisms:

• FAQs
• Guarantees
• Comparisons
• Process transparency

---

6. Friction & UX Barriers

Look for:

• Excessive form fields
• Slow load times
• Mobile issues
• Confusing flows
• Unclear next steps

---

All recommendations must map to:

• a scoring category
• a conversion constraint
• a measurable hypothesis

---

Conversion Readiness Summary

• Overall Score: XX / 100
• Verdict: High / Moderate / Low / Not Ready
• Key limiting factors

---

Quick Wins (Low Effort, High Confidence)

Changes that:

• Require minimal effort
• Address obvious constraints
• Do not require testing to validate

---

High-Impact Improvements

Structural or messaging changes that:

• Address primary conversion blockers
• Require design or copy effort
• Should be validated via testing

---

Testable Hypotheses

Each test must include:

• Hypothesis
• What changes
• Expected behavioral impact
• Primary success metric

---

Copy Alternatives (If Relevant)

Provide 2–3 alternatives for:

• Headlines
• Subheadlines
• CTAs

Each with rationale tied to user intent.

---

(Condensed but preserved; unchanged logic, cleaner framing)

• Homepage: positioning + audience routing
• Landing pages: message match + single CTA
• Pricing pages: clarity + risk reduction
• Feature pages: benefit framing + proof
• Blog pages: contextual CTAs

---

Do not recommend A/B testing when:

• Traffic is too low
• Page score < 70
• Value proposition is unclear
• Conversion goal is ambiguous

Fix fundamentals first.

---

1. Current conversion rate and baseline?
2. Traffic sources and intent?
3. What happens after this page?
4. Existing data (heatmaps, recordings)?
5. Past experiments?

---

• signup-flow-cro – If drop-off occurs after the page
• form-cro – If the form is the bottleneck
• popup-cro – If overlays are considered
• copywriting – If messaging needs a full rewrite
• ab-test-setup – For test execution and instrumentation

```