It’s already been established that the website can always be improved — from copy and content changes to a full redesign. But not all changes are created equal.
Let’s walk through a hypothetical, but potentially realistic, scenario. A local service business is planning to launch a new paid-search campaign in the next two weeks focusing on a new offering that’s expected to generate a substantial amount of traffic and revenue. The owner of the business has called out some concerns about the website that he wants addressed before the campaign goes live.
Start with the Specifics
Slow Page Loading Times
The campaign will send visitors directly to the company’s current homepage. Performance analytics show that page load times consistently exceed acceptable standards. User feedback also confirms that this is one of the main reasons for terminating their session.
The developer identified that oversized assets and the loading mechanism are largely responsible for this delay. He estimates that it will take approximately two days to replace the assets and fix how the assets are rendered.
Good news: this is a clearly defined problem with an equally defined solution. Google’s guidance on optimizing Largest Contentful Paint, a measure of when the largest visible content appears, explains why it’s critical to identify and resolve the root cause of the delay. Compressing an image seems like the obvious solution, but it doesn’t resolve every loading issue.
The hypothesis for this issue assumes that an improved page load time will keep more users on the site and, in turn, complete more service requests.
Missing Trust Information
The homepage provides a description of the services offered but little else in terms of building trust. Historically, the business has leaned on its stellar reputation and word of mouth, but digital campaigns bring in prospects who only know of them for the targeted offer they received. The sales team reports that these prospects are commonly asking for case studies or customer testimonials before moving forward.
Much of this material already exists elsewhere on the site today. The estimate to create the additional material needed and to surface it on the page is approximately three days.
Nielsen Norman Group’s foundational research on website credibility over the years supports the importance of presenting relevant information and evidence to facilitate a sense of trust and business legitimacy. While the importance of this change is clear, there is no guarantee that the conversion rate will improve. However, the observational data from the hypothesis of “increasing user trust will result in more successful inquiries” is valid and worth investigating.
Homepage Redesign
The owner is now asking, “Since we’re already changing so much, why not change it all? The homepage is several years old now and looks dated anyways.” This is a valid request worth a deeper look. The proposed redesign will elevate the entire website to use a more modern architecture and design aesthetic. The estimated effort to design and implement a homepage redesign is a full two weeks.
However, there’s no data to suggest that a customer is experiencing any major friction on the site itself outside of the page load times and lack of trust signals in the content. Users who don’t need or care for either tend to complete service requests at a high rate, which suggests that the site itself is functioning as intended.
The redesign may still have value, but a clear explanation of that value needs to be determined before prioritizing it over well-defined objectives.
Build a Plan That Fits the Budget
In this example, based on the impact, duration, and estimated cost, the recommended approach would be to repair the speed issue first and then the trust content second. Both directly address confirmed friction points that may materially impact the upcoming campaign. The uncertainty around what a redesign would solve for and the effort to implement introduces a risk that should be deferred until after the new campaign reaches maturity.
Three findings. One plan.
An illustrative plan for improving a company homepage.
| # | Finding and evidence | Impact | Duration | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Slow landing page |
High |
2 days |
Schedule first |
|
2 |
Missing trust information |
Medium |
3 days |
Schedule second |
|
3 |
Homepage redesign |
TBD |
10 days |
Defer and clarify scope |
Speed and content first. Redesign deferred.
Estimates include preparation, implementation, and QA. No conversion lift is assumed.
Between the two targeted changes, there’s approximately one week’s worth of work to create the plan, implement, and test the changes. This should also factor in some additional buffer time to account for any unexpected issues that may arise. Given that the campaign is two weeks out, these changes should be completed with plenty of time to spare.
Typically, these changes would be released independently of one another so that analytics can be isolated and attributed to a single change. However, because these changes target distinct moments in the user experience, we can release and evaluate them together. While there may be some overlap between them, there’s enough delineation to still quantify statistical significance.
The “Curveball”
The ability to plan for the unknown and to adapt accordingly is critical to the success of any planned change. Suppose that during the implementation of the changes needed for the page load speed, the developer uncovers a bigger platform issue that requires rewriting several backend functions for the assets to render correctly. The original estimate is no longer accurate, nor does the newly discovered work fit within the campaign timeline.
What should we do now? Rescope the new work? Delay the campaign launch? Invent a time machine? Rarely do things work exactly as planned, so pivot in a way that minimizes the impact while still moving forward. In this scenario, first determine whether smaller, incremental improvements can reduce load times, even if they’re minor. A few small changes may be enough to prevent even a few more users from exiting the experience. Perhaps a user-friendly loading message can be shown so users can still feel progress being made without being left to wonder. As alternatives for performance are worked through, the delivery focus can shift to the trust content.
Plan for the Change, Prepare for the Pivot.
A typical list of changes is always evolving, but it should always explain what will be delivered and why it should be delivered. Clarity wins out against uncertainty to mitigate risks and provide clear direction. Choosing evidence over emotions allows for measurable outcomes that provide explicit success metrics. Lastly, planning for the unexpected helps keep the work moving even when circumstances change.
