The 5 Website Mistakes Killing Your Conversions - And the Fixes

Before you change a word on the page, work out whether the people arriving could plausibly buy from you. A traffic problem and a page problem show the same symptom, visits that never become enquiries, and the fixes share nothing. Rewriting a headline will not rescue a campaign pointed at the wrong audience, and sharper targeting will not rescue a page that fails everyone who lands on it.

What a traffic problem looks like

The signature is a mismatch between the query and the offer. Visitors arrive from searches about something adjacent to what you sell, spend a few seconds on the page, and leave without scrolling. Sessions cluster on informational pages and never reach a service or product page. When enquiries do arrive they are wrong-fit: the wrong budget, the wrong city, the wrong problem entirely.

This is common when paid traffic is bought on broad keywords, when an article ranks for a question your business does not actually answer commercially, or when a directory listing sends people who expected something free. The page may be perfectly good. It is being shown to the wrong room.

What a page problem looks like

Here the visitors are right and the behaviour is still poor. People arrive from your brand name, from a referral, or from a query that names your exact service, and they still leave in the first screen, or scroll the whole page and never touch the form. Returning visitors behave much like first-time ones.

The tell is that high-intent sources do no better than low-intent ones. When someone who searched your company by name behaves like a stranger who arrived by accident, the page is the variable.

How to tell them apart in an afternoon

Split your traffic by intent rather than by channel. Put branded search, direct visits and referrals in one group, and broad discovery traffic in another. Compare how far each group scrolls and how often each reaches an enquiry.

If the high-intent group behaves well and the broad group does not, you have a targeting problem, and where you spend matters more than anything below. If the high-intent group behaves badly too, the page is losing people who already wanted to talk to you. That is the situation the rest of this guide addresses.

The first mistake is a hero headline that describes an aspiration instead of an offer. A visitor lands, reads something like "Building tomorrow, today" or "Your growth partner", and still cannot tell what the company sells, who it sells to, or what happens next. Attention gets spent decoding instead of deciding, and a weak headline reduces attention before anything else on the page gets its turn.

Why it happens

Vague headlines are usually the residue of an internal argument. Several stakeholders want their service represented, nobody wants to look narrow, and the compromise is a sentence broad enough to offend no one. Inside the company it reads as ambition, because everyone there already knows what the business does. Outside it reads as noise.

The other cause is borrowed language. A team studies competitors, absorbs the category's vocabulary, and writes a line that could sit on any rival site without changing a word. That interchangeability is the clearest sign a headline is not doing work.

What the visitor experiences

A stranger gives the top of your page a glance, not a reading. They are checking whether they are in the right place. A headline that fails that check does not send them away annoyed, it sends them back to the results page to try the next link, which costs them nothing and feels easier than working out what you meant.

The business consequence arrives later and disguises itself as something else: thin enquiry volume from decent traffic, sales calls that open with "so what exactly do you do", and marketing spend that looks like it is underperforming when the spend was never the problem.

How to diagnose it

Show the first screen to five people outside your company for five seconds, hide it, then ask what the business does and who it is for. A five-second test needs no software and settles most internal arguments about clarity faster than another meeting will.

Two more checks are worth running. Put your headline beside three competitors' headlines with the logos removed and see whether anyone can match them to the right company. Then read your first screen aloud and count how many sentences pass before a concrete noun appears, a service, a product, an industry, a deliverable. If nothing concrete appears, the visitor has nothing to hold on to.

The quick win

Replace the aspiration with a plain sentence naming what you do and who it is for, and let the subheading carry the nuance. "Custom manufacturing websites for industrial suppliers" beats poetry, not because it is elegant but because it is legible. Specific wins over clever whenever a stranger is deciding whether to stay.

Keep the old line if it matters internally. Move it further down the page, where a reader who already understands the offer can enjoy it.

The deeper fix

The durable version is positioning work rather than copywriting. Decide who the page is for, what it competes against in the buyer's mind, which objection stops the sale, and what evidence answers that objection. Once those four are settled the headline largely writes itself, and the rest of the page stops contradicting it.

This is also where teams often find the real problem sits upstream. If nobody internally agrees on what the company sells, no sentence on the homepage can paper over that. Sorting out the underlying brand identity is the honest fix, and it changes far more than one page.

How to check whether it worked

Watch behaviour on the first screen rather than enquiries. The signals that move first are how many visitors scroll past the hero at all, how far they get, and whether sessions from high-intent sources still end within seconds.

Give it long enough to cover a normal week of traffic patterns, and compare like with like: the same sources, the same days. If scroll depth from branded search improves while early exits from that same source fall, the headline is doing its job.

The second mistake is a page offering so many next steps that it effectively offers none. Book a call, download the guide, chat now, subscribe, message us, view pricing, follow us. Each was added by someone reasonable, and together they hand the visitor a decision they never came to make. A page with one obvious action is easier to act on than a page with seven equal ones.

Why it happens

Calls to action accumulate. A campaign needs a lead magnet, so a download button appears. Support wants fewer emails, so a chat widget appears. Someone reads that social proof matters, so follow buttons appear. Nothing is ever removed, because removing something feels like giving up a channel.

The root cause is that nobody has decided what the page is for. When a page has one job, the primary action is obvious to everyone. When it has five jobs, every button looks equally important, because internally it is.

What the visitor experiences

Competing actions produce hesitation rather than choice. A visitor scans a row of buttons with similar weight and colour, cannot tell which is the main path, and defers. Deferring is the cheapest response available, and from your side it looks identical to leaving.

On a phone it is worse. Sticky bars, chat bubbles and consent notices stack over the content until the button you actually want tapped is the smallest target on the screen.

How to diagnose it

Screenshot your key page and mark every clickable element that asks for an action. If more than a handful sit above the fold, or if two of them carry identical visual weight, you have this leak.

Then look at where clicks genuinely land. If attention is spread thinly across many secondary actions while the primary one is rarely touched, the hierarchy on the page does not match the hierarchy in your head. A chat widget that opens by itself and covers the form is a frequent and easily missed culprit.

The quick win

Choose one primary action per page and make everything else visibly secondary. One filled button in the accent colour, everything else a text link or an outlined button. Use identical wording on every instance of that action, so the page repeats a single request instead of introducing new ones.

Delete rather than demote anything nobody uses. A dead call to action is not neutral, it occupies attention you need elsewhere.

The deeper fix

Give each page a single job and build the page around it. A service page exists to produce an enquiry for that service. A comparison page exists to move someone to the service page. An article exists to answer a question and offer exactly one relevant next step.

Secondary actions then have a sensible home: lower on the page, after the primary request has been made, for the reader who is not ready yet but still needs a path forward.

How to check whether it worked

Look at the distribution of clicks, not only the total. You want a clear majority landing on the primary action, with secondary actions falling behind it rather than level with it.

Watch what happens to enquiry quality as well. Consolidating around one action sometimes changes who enquires rather than how many, which is worth catching by reading the actual submissions for a few weeks instead of trusting a count.

The third mistake is asking for trust before offering any. Logos, testimonials, credentials and case studies sit far below the fold or on a separate page almost nobody opens, while the first screen asks a stranger to book a call. Weak proof reduces trust, and trust is what an enquiry is actually made of.

Why it happens

Proof gets treated as a section rather than a job. Someone builds a "clients" strip, ticks the box, and never asks whether it appears at the moment a visitor is weighing the risk. Meanwhile the genuinely persuasive material, the detailed project, the named reference, the specific outcome a client will vouch for, is stuck waiting on permissions nobody chased.

There is also a quieter reason: assembling real proof is work. It means asking clients for quotes, getting approval to use names, and writing up projects properly. A logo wall is faster, which is exactly why it persuades less.

What the visitor experiences

A first-time visitor is running a risk calculation, not admiring your design. They want evidence that you have done this before, for someone like them, and that the people who hired you were glad afterwards. When the first screen makes a claim and offers nothing to support it, the claim reads as marketing and gets discounted.

The consequence is a page that works only for people who already trust you. Referral traffic converts, everything else stalls, and the site gets quietly described as "fine, but it only really works for warm leads".

How to diagnose it

Open your key page on a phone and note where the first piece of verifiable evidence appears relative to the first request for contact details. If you ask before you prove, the order is wrong.

Then grade the proof you do have. Named clients with specific detail sit at the top. Anonymous quotes and unattributed praise sit near the bottom, close to worthless, because a reader cannot check them. Count how much of your evidence a sceptic could actually verify.

The quick win

Move your strongest existing evidence next to your primary request, and make it specific. One named client sentence describing a real situation does more than six anonymous lines of praise. Where you have recognisable clients and permission to name them, put them where the decision happens rather than in a strip at the bottom.

Never invent, embellish or imply proof you do not have. Fabricated evidence is both a legal risk and, in practice, easy to spot. If the good material is thin, say less and say it precisely.

The deeper fix

Build proof as an ongoing operation rather than a one-off page. Ask for a reference at the moment a project lands well, not a year later. Keep a standing list of what each client has agreed you may say. Write up projects while the details are still fresh and the people involved still remember them.

Match the type of evidence to the objection it answers. Doubts about capability need worked examples. Doubts about reliability need references and tenure. Doubts about fit need an example from the same sector. Generic praise answers none of these, which is why it moves so little.

How to check whether it worked

Track how far visitors get before leaving, and whether people now reach the form having already passed the evidence rather than scrolling straight past it.

The clearest signal is qualitative and comes from your sales calls. When prospects begin arriving already aware of a specific project or reference, the proof is being read. When every call starts from zero, it is still invisible regardless of what the page contains.

The fourth mistake is a page that is comfortable on a designer's laptop and slow on the phone most of your visitors actually use. Heavy images, several font families, autoplaying video, a carousel nobody asked for and a stack of marketing scripts all load before anything useful appears. The visitor is left watching a blank screen while deciding whether to bother.

Why it happens

Speed degrades gradually and invisibly. Nobody ships a slow page deliberately. A tag gets added for a campaign, an uncompressed hero image gets swapped in by someone in a hurry, a plugin arrives with its own dependencies, and each change seems small on an office connection with a warm cache.

The testing environment hides it. The team reviews the site on fast laptops, on strong wifi, on repeat visits, which is close to the best case and nothing like the first-time visitor on mobile data in a lift.

What the visitor experiences

Waiting, then instability. First a blank screen or a bare outline, then content arriving in pieces, then the layout jumping as late images and banners push everything down, often just as someone is reaching for a button. A mis-tap caused by a shifting layout is worse than a slow load, because it feels like the site did something to them.

Most people do not complain about this. They leave, and the departure is recorded as a bounce that looks exactly like disinterest.

How to diagnose it

Test on a real mid-range phone over mobile data, not on the newest device in the office over wifi. Clear the cache first so you see what a first-time visitor sees. That single test finds more than most reports will.

Then separate lab results from field data. A lab test, run on demand under controlled conditions, is useful for finding causes and comparing builds. Field data, gathered from real visits across real devices and networks, is what tells you whether visitors are genuinely waiting. Use the lab to diagnose and the field to decide, and segment by device, because an average across desktop and mobile hides the problem you are hunting.

The quick win

Most mobile weight is images. Resize them to the dimensions they actually display at, compress them properly, serve modern formats, and stop anything below the first screen from loading until it is needed. Then remove what earns nothing: unused font weights, the carousel, marketing tags for campaigns that ended, scripts nobody can name an owner for.

Reserve space for images and embeds so late arrivals cannot shove the layout around. That alone removes the mis-taps.

The deeper fix

Set a performance budget and treat it as a build requirement rather than an aspiration, so a new script has to earn its place against a stated limit. Render meaningful content on the server, so the page is readable before scripts finish. Put images through an automatic pipeline, so nobody can hand-upload a huge file again.

Audit third-party tags on a schedule with a named owner for each. Tags are where speed quietly goes, precisely because no single one feels significant.

How to check whether it worked

Watch field measurements over several weeks rather than celebrating one lab score. Lab numbers move the moment you deploy, real-world numbers move as the mix of returning and new visitors turns over.

Segment by device and connection, and keep watching after launch. Performance regresses the same way it degraded in the first place, one reasonable addition at a time.

The fifth mistake is a form built around what the business wants to know rather than what the visitor is ready to share. Company size, budget band, job title, phone number and a message box, all demanded before anyone has been given a reason to trust the form at the other end. Weak forms reduce enquiries, and they reduce them at the last possible moment, after everything else has already worked.

Why it happens

Fields accumulate for good internal reasons. Sales wants qualification, so budget is added. Marketing wants segmentation, so industry is added. Operations wants routing, so a dropdown is added. Every field has a sponsor and none has an opponent, because the cost lands on strangers who never complain.

There is usually an unexamined assumption underneath: that a longer form filters out time-wasters. It filters out the hesitant, which is a different group and includes plenty of people who would have bought.

What the visitor experiences

A long form reads as an interrogation from an organisation that has not yet earned one. Asking for budget before establishing value invites either a defensive answer or an abandoned form. Asking for a phone number signals a sales call the visitor has not agreed to.

Then the mechanics finish the job: the wrong keyboard on a phone, a validation error that appears only on submit, a rule that rejects a legitimate number, a cleared form after a single mistake. People rarely start again.

How to diagnose it

Measure the form at field level, not just as a whole. You need to know how many people begin it, which field they were last in when they stopped, and which fields produce validation errors. A form that fails at a specific field is usually a mechanics problem rather than a motivation problem.

Then fill it in yourself on a phone, with one deliberate mistake, and see how it recovers. A form that clears its own contents on error is losing enquiries you will never hear about.

The quick win

Cut to what you genuinely need to reply: a name, one way to reach them, and enough context to prepare. Everything else can be asked in the conversation that follows. Make optional fields genuinely optional and label them so.

Fix the mechanics in the same pass. Correct input types so phones present the right keyboard, validate as people type instead of at submit, keep what they typed when something fails, and write error messages that say what to do rather than what went wrong.

The deeper fix

Collect qualification over time rather than all at once. Ask the minimum first, then gather the rest on the confirmation step, in the reply, or during the call, when the person has a reason to answer. Route enquiries by intent so a simple question does not have to pass through a form built for a large project.

Offer a lighter commitment beside the form for people who are not ready to be contacted. A well-scoped chat assistant, answering real questions and handing over cleanly to a person, gives the hesitant somewhere to go that is not the back button. Set it up so it supports the form rather than covering it.

How to check whether it worked

Compare form starts with form completions before and after, and keep watching the field-level drop-off, because shortening a form often just moves the failure to the next weakest field.

Then read the enquiries. If you removed a qualifying question, the test is whether your team can still have a useful first conversation, not whether the count went up. A shorter form that produces conversations you cannot act on is not an improvement.

A first screen has four jobs, in order: say what this is, say who it is for, give one reason to believe it, and offer one clear next step. When those four land in that sequence, the rest of the page becomes supporting material. When they compete, the visitor has to assemble the story themselves, and most will not.

The order of understanding

People read a page as a series of questions. What is this? Am I the right person for it? Why should I believe you? What happens if I act? Answering them out of order is a common and expensive mistake, which is why a first screen full of testimonials still fails if the visitor does not yet know what is being sold.

Check your own page against that order. If the strongest element is evidence for a claim you have not made yet, the hierarchy is inverted.

Making hierarchy visible

Visual weight should follow narrative importance. The most important sentence should be the most prominent thing on the screen, and everything else should visibly rank below it. When three elements share top billing, the page has no hierarchy, only decoration.

The usual failure is a beautiful screen in which the headline, an image, a video and a button all compete for first place. Squint at it, or blur it deliberately. Whatever still stands out is what your visitor sees first, and it should be the sentence that explains the offer.

Keeping the message consistent after launch

Messages drift. A campaign lands with its own promise, a new service page adopts different vocabulary, and within a year the same company describes itself three ways on three pages. Visitors who cross between them notice, even if they could not name what felt off.

The fix is a short internal reference, held by whoever owns the words, that fixes what you sell, to whom, and in what language. Keeping that current is ordinary editorial discipline, and it is where an in-house or external content team earns its place, well before anyone argues about button colours.

You cannot fix what you cannot see, and poor tracking hides the problem. It is common to measure pageviews thoroughly and outcomes barely at all, which is why conversion arguments so often come down to opinion. Before diagnosing anything, make sure the actions that matter are recorded as events you can segment.

Define conversions as events, not as pages

A conversion is the action you want a visitor to take: an enquiry, a purchase, a booking, a call, a message. Record each as a named event at the moment it succeeds, rather than inferring it from arrival at a confirmation page, which misses everything that failed on the way.

Measure the button press and the successful submission separately. The gap between them is where broken forms live, and a site that only counts clicks will report a healthy number while enquiries never arrive.

Segment by source, device and intent

An overall conversion figure is close to useless for diagnosis, because it averages people who came looking for you with people who arrived by accident. Segment by source, by device, and by whether the visit was high or low intent.

Most real insight lives in the difference between segments. Mobile behaving far worse than desktop points at speed or layout. High-intent traffic behaving like cold traffic points at message or proof. A single blended average conceals both.

Keep the measurement trustworthy

Name events consistently and write down what each one means, or in six months nobody will know whether two similar events count the same thing. Check that tracking survives releases, because a redeploy that quietly drops an event produces a convincing chart of a disaster that never happened.

Confirm the numbers against something real. Compare recorded enquiries against what actually reached the inbox or the CRM. Where several people rely on this, an analytics dashboard that everyone reads beats separate exports that disagree. Any number nobody has ever reconciled should be treated as a rumour.

Respect privacy while you do it

Collect what you need for the decision and no more. Keep personal details out of event names, page paths and query strings, mask sensitive fields in any recording, and honour consent choices properly rather than nominally.

This is a legal requirement in many markets and a reasonable standard everywhere. It also protects you from building a measurement system you later have to tear out.

Session recordings and heatmaps are for generating hypotheses, not for proving them. They show you what happened on specific visits, which is exactly what analytics cannot, and they will happily mislead you if you treat a handful of sessions as evidence about everyone.

What they are good at

They surface problems nobody thought to measure: a button that looks like a label and never gets touched, a section everyone scrolls straight past, a form field where people hesitate, repeated clicking on something that is not interactive, a mobile menu that closes when it should not.

These are the details that explain a number you already have. An unexplained drop between two steps is far easier to understand after watching a few people fail at it.

What they cannot tell you

They cannot tell you why, only what. A recording shows someone leaving the page. It does not show whether they were interrupted, comparing you against a competitor, or simply not ready. Inventing motives to fit a recording is the most common way this work goes wrong.

They are also unrepresentative by nature. You watch a small, self-selected slice, and heatmaps aggregate different screen sizes into one picture that matches nobody's actual experience. Treat both as directional, never as measurement.

How to review them usefully

Start with a question rather than a feed. If form completions are weak, filter to sessions that reached the form and did not finish, and watch those. Watching random sessions is entertaining and rarely productive.

Watch enough to see a pattern repeat, then stop and write down what you saw as a hypothesis with a proposed change. Keep the raw observation separate from your interpretation, because the observation stays true and the interpretation often turns out to be wrong.

Conversions rarely fail on one page. They fail somewhere along a path that starts before the visit and continues after the form, and teams that optimise only the landing page tend to be fixing the one step that already works. Map the whole route, then find the widest gap.

The path is longer than the page

A realistic path runs: the query or ad that set an expectation, the entry page, the pages consulted for detail, the evidence that settled the risk, the form, the confirmation, the reply, and the first human conversation. A promise made in an ad and not repeated on the page breaks the path before the page gets a chance.

Because much of this now begins in search results and AI answers, the version of you that people meet first is often a summary rather than your homepage. Pages written so that search and answer engines can extract a clear, accurate answer tend to set expectations correctly, which means the visitors who do arrive are better prepared.

The steps everyone forgets

The confirmation step is usually wasted. It says "thank you, we will be in touch" and nothing else, at the one moment a person is maximally engaged. Tell them what happens next, when to expect a reply, and who will send it.

Then there is response time, which sits outside the website and routinely undoes it. An enquiry answered days later competes against every company that answered the same day. If enquiries land in an inbox nobody owns, no amount of page work will fix the outcome.

Find the widest gap first

Lay the steps out and record how many people pass each one. The largest drop between two adjacent steps is where to work, even when it sits somewhere unglamorous like the confirmation email or the sales handover.

This is also the check against wasted effort. A page whose form completes well does not need another round of copy changes. Look at the step before it, or the step after.

Order the work by how much is being lost and how confident you are about the cause, not by how easy a change is to make or how much anyone dislikes the current design. An audit that returns thirty findings is useless until someone decides which three matter this month.

A sequence that holds up

Measurement first, because every later decision depends on it and it is cheap. Then message, because a clear headline changes how every other element is read. Then friction, meaning calls to action and forms, where losses are concentrated and fixes are quick. Then speed, which is usually a project rather than an afternoon. Aesthetics last, unless the design is actively causing confusion.

Teams reliably invert this, starting with a redesign because it feels decisive, and discovering afterwards that they cannot tell whether it helped, because measurement was never sorted out.

What to require before shipping each change

Change	What you need before shipping it	Effort
Headline and first-screen copy	Five outside readers and a competitor comparison	Hours
One primary action per page	A click map and a decision about that page's job	Hours
Proof moved beside the request	Permission to name clients, or usable specific detail	Days
Shorter form	Field-level drop-off, and agreement on what sales genuinely needs	Days
Mobile performance	Field measurements from real devices, not a single lab run	Weeks
Full rebuild	Evidence that the structure, not the page, is the constraint	Months

When an outside view helps

Bring in outside eyes when the team can no longer see the page. People who have worked on a site for years cannot un-know what the navigation labels mean, which makes internal clarity reviews unreliable in exactly the way that matters.

An independent brand audit is worth it when the disagreement is about what the business should say rather than where a button should sit. If the argument is about positioning, no amount of page testing will settle it, because the problem is not on the page.

Decide what would count as success before you ship, then leave the change alone long enough to find out. Most conversion testing goes wrong not through bad statistics but through bad discipline: several changes at once, a window cut short the moment the numbers look flattering, and a conclusion written to match what someone already believed.

Change one thing, or accept you will not know why

If you rewrite the headline, shorten the form and compress the images in one release, you will learn whether the release helped, and nothing about which part did it. That is occasionally an acceptable trade when a page is bad everywhere and speed matters more than knowledge.

Be explicit about which mode you are in. Shipping a bundle and then claiming a specific cause is how teams build false confidence that misleads them for years.

Give it a fair window

Set the window in advance and cover complete business cycles, so weekday and weekend behaviour, payday effects and campaign bursts are all included. Stopping the moment a result looks good is the most common error in this work, because early numbers swing wildly and always look decisive at the time.

If you would not have stopped the test when the number moved the other way, do not stop it when it moves your way.

When you do not have the traffic to split-test

Many sites do not have enough visitors for a split test to resolve anything in reasonable time. Pretending otherwise produces confident conclusions built on noise. The honest alternative is to make well-reasoned changes one at a time, record when each shipped, and watch the direction over a longer period while accounting for anything else that changed.

Lean harder on qualitative evidence in that situation. Five people failing the same task tells you something real about the page, whatever your traffic volume, and does not require a split test to act on.

Keep a change log

Record what changed, when, why, and what you expected. Without it, nobody can explain a shift three months later, and the same rejected idea will be proposed again by someone new every year.

The log is also what stops a bad conclusion becoming permanent. When a later result contradicts an earlier one, you need to know precisely what was shipped in between.

A practical budget range is ₹30,000 to ₹5,00,000+ for audits, redesign, CRO testing and conversion-focused rebuilds. That is a wide band because it covers genuinely different pieces of work, from a focused review of one page through to rebuilding a site's structure, content and measurement together.

What moves the number

Scope is the main driver: how many pages and templates are involved, how much of the content has to be rewritten rather than rearranged, whether measurement has to be built from scratch, and how many systems the forms have to talk to. Research adds cost too, since interviewing customers is more expensive than guessing and considerably more reliable.

The cheapest end buys a diagnosis and a short list of changes. The upper end buys a rebuild where message, structure, speed and measurement are handled as one piece of work rather than as four separate projects that quietly contradict each other.

Spending in the right order

Buy the diagnosis before the rebuild. Starting with an audit means you either find the fix is small and cheap, or you get evidence for the larger rebuild, which is a better position than starting an expensive project on a hunch. Reviewing published pricing before conversations is a reasonable way to calibrate what a given scope should involve.

The trap at the other end is buying a beautiful site with no measurement, which leaves you unable to tell whether it worked. A conversion-focused website is one where the message, the structure and the tracking are treated as parts of the same job. At Branditify that is the basis we work on, because the alternative is redesigning on opinion every couple of years.

Start with the two things that cost least and unlock everything else: confirm your conversions are actually being recorded, then fix the first screen of your most important page. Neither needs a project, a budget approval, or a redesign, and both make every later decision better informed.

The first pass

Check that every real action, form submission, call tap, message tap and booking, fires a named event you can segment by source and device, and reconcile a day of those events against what genuinely arrived. Then run the five-second test on your key page and rewrite the headline if people cannot say what you do.

After that, count the calls to action above the fold and cut them to one primary path. Move your strongest genuine proof up beside it. Open the page on a real phone over mobile data and note what you are waiting for.

What to do with what you find

Write the findings down as a short ordered list, with the largest loss first and the cheapest confident fix at the top of the ties. Ship one change at a time, record it in the log, and give each one a fair window before judging it.

Where the answer turns out to be structural rather than cosmetic, that is worth knowing before spending on a rebuild. The point of diagnosing in this order is to make sure the money goes where the loss actually is, instead of where the frustration happens to be loudest.