# Landing Page Audit — Checklist & Methodology

A systematic framework for evaluating landing page effectiveness across every dimension that influences conversion. This methodology combines heuristic evaluation with data-driven benchmarks to produce actionable, prioritized recommendations.

---

## Scoring Rubric — Landing Page Score

Each section is scored 1–5. The weighted total produces the Landing Page Score (0–100).

| Section | Weight | 1 (Poor) | 3 (Adequate) | 5 (Excellent) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Above-Fold Clarity | 20% | No clear value prop; visitor confused within 5s | Value prop present but generic or buried | Specific, compelling value prop immediately visible |
| Trust & Credibility | 15% | No social proof or trust signals | Some testimonials or logos present | Layered trust signals matched to buyer stage |
| Copy & Messaging | 15% | Feature-focused, jargon-heavy, no hierarchy | Benefit-oriented but lacks specificity | Customer-voice copy, objection handling, clear hierarchy |
| CTA & Form Design | 20% | Vague CTA, excessive fields, poor contrast | Clear CTA with reasonable form length | High-contrast CTA, minimal friction, value-framed label |
| Visual Design | 10% | Cluttered, inconsistent, stock-heavy imagery | Clean layout with adequate visual hierarchy | Purposeful design directing eye flow to CTA |
| Mobile Experience | 10% | Broken or unusable on mobile | Functional but not optimized | Thumb-friendly, fast, native-feeling experience |
| Page Speed | 10% | >5s load time | 2–4s load time | <2s load time with optimized LCP/CLS |

**Score Interpretation:**
- 85–100: High-performing page — test incremental improvements
- 65–84: Solid foundation — address weak sections for meaningful lift
- 40–64: Underperforming — structural changes needed before traffic scaling
- Below 40: Fundamental rebuild recommended

---

## Full Audit Checklist (55 Items)

### Above-Fold Clarity (Items 1–10)

- [ ] 1. Headline communicates specific outcome or transformation
- [ ] 2. Subheadline adds context without repeating headline
- [ ] 3. Visitor can identify what you do, who it's for, and why it matters within 5 seconds
- [ ] 4. Hero image or visual reinforces the value proposition (not decoration)
- [ ] 5. Primary CTA is visible without scrolling on all viewports
- [ ] 6. Navigation is removed or minimized to reduce exit paths
- [ ] 7. Message matches the ad/email/referral source that sent the visitor
- [ ] 8. No competing offers or distractions above the fold
- [ ] 9. Page title and meta description align with on-page messaging
- [ ] 10. Unique value differentiator is explicit — not just "better" or "leading"

### Trust & Credibility (Items 11–18)

- [ ] 11. Customer logos relevant to target segment are displayed
- [ ] 12. Testimonials include full names, titles, company, and headshots
- [ ] 13. Quantified results appear in testimonials or case study snippets
- [ ] 14. Third-party validation present (awards, certifications, press mentions)
- [ ] 15. Security badges displayed near form or payment fields
- [ ] 16. Privacy language is concise and positioned near data-collection points
- [ ] 17. Social proof is specific to the use case (not generic company praise)
- [ ] 18. Guarantee or risk-reversal statement is present and prominent

### Copy & Messaging (Items 19–28)

- [ ] 19. Copy leads with customer problems or desired outcomes, not product features
- [ ] 20. Benefits are specific and quantified where possible
- [ ] 21. Objections are addressed on-page (pricing, complexity, switching cost)
- [ ] 22. Copy uses the audience's own language (pulled from reviews, interviews, support tickets)
- [ ] 23. Scannable formatting — short paragraphs, bullet points, bold key phrases
- [ ] 24. No jargon, acronyms, or insider terminology without explanation
- [ ] 25. Urgency or scarcity is genuine and contextual, not manufactured
- [ ] 26. Microcopy on buttons and forms reduces anxiety ("Free," "No credit card," "2 min setup")
- [ ] 27. Content hierarchy follows awareness level of the traffic source
- [ ] 28. FAQ section addresses top 3–5 buying objections

### CTA & Form Design (Items 29–38)

- [ ] 29. CTA button text describes the value received, not the action ("Get My Free Audit" vs "Submit")
- [ ] 30. CTA button has sufficient color contrast (minimum 4.5:1 ratio)
- [ ] 31. Only one primary CTA per viewport (secondary CTA clearly de-emphasized)
- [ ] 32. Form requests only information needed for the immediate next step
- [ ] 33. Form field count matches offer value (high-value = more fields acceptable)
- [ ] 34. Required vs optional fields are clearly distinguished
- [ ] 35. Inline validation provides real-time feedback
- [ ] 36. Error messages are specific and helpful, not generic ("Please enter a valid email" vs "Error")
- [ ] 37. Thank-you page continues the conversion journey (next step, expectation setting)
- [ ] 38. CTA is repeated at logical scroll points for long pages

### Visual Design (Items 39–44)

- [ ] 39. Visual hierarchy guides eye from headline to supporting content to CTA
- [ ] 40. Whitespace is used intentionally to group related elements
- [ ] 41. Imagery shows the product in use or the outcome achieved (not generic stock)
- [ ] 42. Color palette is limited — accent color reserved for CTAs
- [ ] 43. Typography is readable (16px+ body, 1.5+ line height, sufficient contrast)
- [ ] 44. Directional cues (arrows, eye gaze, layout flow) point toward the CTA

### Mobile Experience (Items 45–49)

- [ ] 45. Tap targets are minimum 44x44px with adequate spacing
- [ ] 46. Forms use appropriate input types (tel, email, number) for mobile keyboards
- [ ] 47. Sticky CTA or persistent button is present on long mobile pages
- [ ] 48. Content is not hidden behind "click to expand" toggles that reduce engagement
- [ ] 49. Images are responsive and do not cause horizontal scrolling

### Page Speed & Technical (Items 50–55)

- [ ] 50. Largest Contentful Paint (LCP) under 2.5 seconds
- [ ] 51. Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS) under 0.1
- [ ] 52. First Input Delay (FID) or Interaction to Next Paint (INP) under 200ms
- [ ] 53. Images are compressed and served in modern formats (WebP/AVIF)
- [ ] 54. Third-party scripts are deferred or loaded asynchronously
- [ ] 55. Tracking is functional — analytics, heatmaps, and conversion pixels fire correctly

---

## Benchmark Conversion Rates by Industry & Page Type

| Industry | Lead Gen Landing Page | Free Trial Signup | E-commerce Product | Webinar Registration | SaaS Demo Request |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B2B SaaS | 2.5–5.0% | 3.0–7.0% | — | 20–35% | 1.5–4.0% |
| E-commerce (General) | — | — | 1.5–3.5% | — | — |
| E-commerce (Luxury) | — | — | 0.5–1.5% | — | — |
| Financial Services | 2.0–5.5% | 1.0–3.0% | — | 15–25% | 2.0–5.0% |
| Healthcare / Wellness | 2.5–6.0% | — | 1.0–3.0% | 15–30% | — |
| Education / EdTech | 3.0–8.0% | 5.0–12.0% | — | 25–40% | — |
| Real Estate | 1.5–4.0% | — | — | 10–20% | 2.0–5.0% |
| Professional Services | 3.0–7.0% | — | — | 20–35% | 2.5–6.0% |
| Agency / Marketing | 3.5–8.0% | 4.0–10.0% | — | 25–40% | 3.0–7.0% |
| Legal | 2.0–6.5% | — | — | 15–25% | — |

*Top quartile performers typically achieve 2–3x median rates. Pages below 50% of median should be flagged for immediate audit.*

---

## Common Conversion Killers — Ranked by Impact

| Rank | Conversion Killer | Avg. Impact on CVR | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Message mismatch between ad and landing page | -30 to -60% | Very common |
| 2 | Slow page load (>4s) | -20 to -40% | Common |
| 3 | Unclear or missing value proposition | -25 to -50% | Very common |
| 4 | Too many form fields for the offer value | -15 to -30% | Common |
| 5 | No trust signals near conversion point | -10 to -25% | Common |
| 6 | Competing navigation or exit paths | -10 to -20% | Very common |
| 7 | Generic CTA text ("Submit", "Click Here") | -5 to -15% | Extremely common |
| 8 | Broken mobile experience | -20 to -50% | Common |
| 9 | No objection handling on page | -10 to -20% | Common |
| 10 | Poor visual hierarchy — CTA not prominent | -5 to -15% | Common |

---

## Heuristic Evaluation Frameworks

### Cialdini's Principles Applied to Landing Pages

| Principle | Landing Page Application | Audit Question |
|---|---|---|
| Reciprocity | Offer genuine value before asking (free tool, guide, audit) | Does the page give something valuable before requesting information? |
| Social Proof | Customer count, testimonials, case studies, logos | Is social proof specific, relevant, and layered throughout the page? |
| Authority | Expert credentials, media mentions, certifications | Does the page establish expertise without being self-congratulatory? |
| Scarcity | Limited availability, time-bound offers, enrollment caps | Is any scarcity claim genuine and verifiable? |
| Consistency | Micro-commitments before the main ask | Does the page use progressive engagement (quiz, calculator, assessment)? |
| Liking | Relatable language, founder story, behind-the-scenes | Does the page feel human, approachable, and aligned with the audience's identity? |

### Fogg Behavior Model (B = MAP)

For conversion to occur, **Motivation**, **Ability**, and a **Prompt** must converge at the same moment.

| Element | Audit Focus | Red Flags |
|---|---|---|
| **Motivation** | Does the page amplify desire and reduce fear? | Copy focuses on features instead of outcomes; no emotional hooks; no risk reversal |
| **Ability** | Is the requested action as simple as possible? | Too many fields; unclear next step; cognitive overload from too many choices |
| **Prompt** | Is the CTA visible, clear, and timed correctly? | CTA below the fold; vague button text; no CTA repetition on long pages |

---

## Priority Recommendations Template

After completing the audit, use this template to structure recommendations.

### Immediate Fixes (0–48 hours, no dev work)

| # | Finding | Current State | Recommendation | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

### Quick Wins (1–2 weeks, minor dev work)

| # | Finding | Current State | Recommendation | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

### Strategic Improvements (2–6 weeks, significant effort)

| # | Finding | Current State | Recommendation | Expected Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | | | | |
| 2 | | | | |
| 3 | | | | |

### Test Hypotheses Generated from This Audit

| Priority | Hypothesis | Variable to Test | Primary Metric | Estimated Lift |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | | | | |
| P2 | | | | |
| P3 | | | | |

---

## How to Use This Audit

1. **Score each section** using the rubric at the top. Calculate the weighted Landing Page Score.
2. **Walk through all 55 checklist items.** Note each failure with a screenshot and current state.
3. **Compare conversion rate** against industry benchmarks. Identify the gap.
4. **Cross-reference** failures against the Conversion Killers ranking to identify highest-impact issues.
5. **Apply heuristic frameworks** (Cialdini, Fogg) to diagnose root causes behind surface-level problems.
6. **Populate the recommendations template** with prioritized fixes grouped by effort and timeline.
7. **Generate test hypotheses** from the top findings — every recommendation should be framed as a testable hypothesis.
