Conducting A/B tests of your marketing initiatives is a great way to learn how to drive more traffic to your website and generate more leads from the visits you’re getting. But what is A/B testing, anyway?
A/B testing, also known as split testing, is a method of testing through which marketing variables are compared to each other to identify the one that brings a better response rate. In this context, the element that is being tested is called the “control,” and the element that is argued to give a better result is called the “treatment.”
You’d probably like to see how these elements might look like -- what are some real-life examples of A/B testing in action?
In this blog post, we'll cover A/B tests across three marketing channels: landing pages, email, and calls-to-action. All the examples that we discuss here have been conducted by members of the HubSpot marketing team, and each test can teach you a lesson about A/B testing. More specifically, our three case studies covered here advise you to:
- Optimize landing pages that don’t convert at a high rate.
- Start your optimization process with an offer test.
- Use the knowledge you’ve gained to improve existing processes.
1. A/B Testing: Landing Pages
This test was produced for the 2011 Landing Page Optimization Summit held by MECLABS, the parent company of MarketingSherpa & MarketingExperiments. HubSpot was part of a live landing page optimization test in which the audience was given a control page and asked to build a treatment page by incorporating changes that could positively affect conversion rates.
The entire control page (see above) was taken as a variable and was revamped. We changed the image and its placement, and we shortened the copy and the form. In an effort to drive a lot of traffic to this page, we did a heavy email marketing push, blog posts, and social media promotion. The test was conducted using HubSpot’s landing page tools.
Our A/B test results showed that the control converted at a rate of 47.91% and the treatment converted at a rate of 48.24% -- an absolute difference of 0.3%, which is a pretty negligible increase.
Marketing Lesson: Optimize Landing Pages That Don’t Already Convert at a High Rate
The conclusion we arrived at is that the audience was highly motivated by the marketing offer itself, regardless of the other page variables such as copy/form length and layout. The lesson here is, when conducting A/B tests on landing pages, start with pages that have a low visitor-to-lead conversion rate to begin with. It’s pretty hard to beat a page that already converts 47% of its traffic!
2. A/B Testing: Calls-to-Action
The screenshot below is of a call-to-action A/B test that sought to compare two marketing offer types. The image actually illustrates what HubSpot’s homepage used to look like in 2010! Originally, HubSpot’s homepage offered our community a seven-day free trial. However, we were curious to see if offering a longer trial period would entice more visitors to sign up. Would it have a significant effect? In this case, our control was a variation that offered the seven-day free trial, and the treatment offered a 30-day free trial.
Results from the test showed that the 30-day free trial enticed more visitors and had a significant effect on conversion rates. The 30-day free trial won with a 99.9% confidence rate and created a 110% increase in HubSpot free trials. The control had a 0.326% visitor-to-free-trial conversion rate, while the treatment had a 0.709% visitor-to-trial conversion rate.
Marketing Lesson: Start Your Optimization Process With an Offer Test
The takeaway from this A/B test is that the type of offer can exercise a tremendous influence over lead generation efforts. Therefore, if you want to optimize your calls-to-action (and, for that matter, emails and landing pages), comparing different offers is a great place to start. Such experiments will provide you with a better understanding of what prompts your visitors to convert into leads.
3. A/B Testing: Email Marketing
Subject lines are a critical element of email marketing. They have the power to grab the attention of recipients and impact click-through rates (CTRs) greatly. That's why we always want to make sure we're using the best possible email subject lines when emailing our subscribers. We regularly conduct A/B tests to evaluate winning subject lines.
But besides a subject line, recipients also see a sender name in their inbox. Who is the email coming from? This sender name can make a big difference on open and click-through rates. So in 2011, we conducted a test to compare a generic “HubSpot” sender name to a personal name of someone from the marketing team.
Our control generated a 0.73% CTR, and the treatment generated a 0.96% CTR. With a confidence of 99.9%, we had a clear winner. Our conclusion after conducting this A/B test was that emails sent by a real person are more likely to be clicked on than emails sent from a company name. But how did CTR impact the number of leads we generated?
The treatment generated 292 more clicks than the control. Since HubSpot's average visitor-to-lead conversion rate on landing pages is 45%, that means the treatment got us 131 more leads. This is great result in and of itself, but you should also think about how valuable this lesson is when applied to HubSpot's broader email marketing program.
Marketing Lesson: Use the Knowledge You’ve Gained to Improve Existing Processes
We took this insight and used it to revamp HubSpot's lead nurturing campaigns, adding a personal sender name and signature to each of those email messages. The lesson is simple: when your A/B tests lead to significant results, use the knowledge you’ve gained to improve existing processes.
While we've covered 3 A/B testing examples in this post, there is no shortage of variables you can test in your marketing campaigns. Check out this exhaustive list of split testing options, and start testing to improve the impact of your programs.
This blog post is an excerpt from HubSpot's ebook "An Introduction to Using A/B Testing for Marketing Optimization." Download the entire 50-page ebook to learn more about split testing.



Paul Cheney 4:40 PM on March 02, 2012
Maggie,
Just out of curiosity, what was the final order rate for the 7 vs 30 day free trial?
Did it validate?
Be interesting to know if the 7 day free trial had more final orders than the 30 day free trial.
Magdalena Georgieva 4:43 PM on March 02, 2012
Hi Paul,
"The 30-day free trial created a 110% increase in HubSpot free trials."
It performed much better than the 7-day trial and that is what we use today.
Matt Sullivan 4:57 PM on March 02, 2012
I think that every marketer needs to love A/B testing. Just because you have something that works doesn't mean it can't work better!
I recently documented a test I did of landing page layouts.
It was amazing to see that one change yielded a 217% increase in conversions.
Brian Yang 6:01 PM on March 02, 2012
Great point on targeting landing pages that are low performing for A/B testing.
However I have to ask... what how did you presell/qualify the visitors to the landing page... that's where the secret is.
Magdalena Georgieva 7:22 PM on March 02, 2012
Thanks, Brian. Through a range of ways: the CTA in this blog post is one way. ;-) Then we have an email campaign, social media updates and possibly other calls-to-action throughout the website.
Brian Yang 7:52 PM on March 02, 2012
Thanks Maggie. I'll be keeping up to date with your latest posts ;)
Jim 7:33 AM on March 03, 2012
This is likely splitting hairs, but your first example is a multivariate test rather than an A:B test - and there's a significant difference: In multivariate testing, you change multiple factors, and are not able to tell exactly which alterations effected the difference in responses. And in some cases, changes work against one another, leading to the (possibly false) conclusion that none of them are effective.
That's not to say multivariate testing is to be avoided - it's very efficient and gets the immediate job done - but the trade-off is that you can't take away valid conclusions about what element(s) were actually effective.
Lucas 8:39 AM on March 03, 2012
This will truly help us see and understand the value of split testing. We may see all the stats and reports but at some point, let's face it~ we're still lost. Thanks Ms. Magda!
Magdalena Georgieva 9:19 AM on March 03, 2012
Jim, the first test is actually A/B test in which we take the entire page as the variable. It's on the page level.
If this were multivariate testing, we would have had many other variations with all possible combinations of the changes we made.
Dave Stopher SEO 4:38 PM on March 03, 2012
I love A/B testing.
Ratna Dewi 12:49 PM on March 04, 2012
Great article. we all know the landing page is one of the most important. and this article give us more understanding about those kind of thing.
Jack 6:15 AM on March 05, 2012
Hi Magdalena!
There are so many essential points you have raised in this post. Sending emails with a personal name is such a good route to take with email marketing, it gets across personality, trust, and reaches people on a more personal level, enticing them to open, of course you need a catchy subject line too.
I have been moving things around and using some split testing with my blog recently, it's so important to test things and more important to track them in the first place so you can move forward and improve.
Mel 12:12 PM on March 05, 2012
Hi Magdelena,
Enjoyed reading your blog and the related comments. Two thoughts: First, regarding Paul’s question about the Call-To-Action Test. I think he was asking how many of the visitors who opted for the trial converted to buying customers post-trial. For example, if it so happened that none of the 30-day trial group purchased (i.e., converted to a paying customer) while some of the 7-day trial group purchased, then the 7-day trial may have been the stronger offer in the long run. Secondly, I think Jim makes an important point about the Landing Page Test. The Treatment version contained many variables that, as you say, were being tested in aggregate vs. the control. However, that might not make for a very clean test. It’s possible that the treatment version contained a high-performing variable that simply got cancelled out by weaker ones on the page. A cleaner test would be one that isolated one variable at a time (just like the 7 vs. 30 day trial example). Anyway, again I enjoyed your blog. Testing is the name of the game!