Buy & Bill Landing Page - A/B Testing

Healthcare providers evaluating inventory management solutions needed to understand how PULSE's Buy & Bill module addresses their operational challenges. The marketing team faced a strategic question: should the page lead with product capabilities or financial impact?

This required designing two distinct value propositions that could be tested while maintaining consistent messaging throughout the remainder of the page. The challenge involved balancing lead generation goals with providing sufficient information for qualified prospects to self-assess fit.

• Communicate product value clearly to time-constrained healthcare providers

• Drive engagement with the embedded ROI calculator

• Generate qualified demo requests

• Test messaging approaches to inform broader marketing strategy

Hero section - Value proposition (A/B tested variant)

Why Use Pulse - Feature benefits with icon-based visual hierarchy

Buy & Bill Lifecycle - Process visualization explaining workflow integration

ROI Calculator - Interactive tool embedded mid-page

Integration Partners - Logos demonstrating ecosystem compatibility

Customer Testimonials - Quantified savings data from existing users

Call to Action - Demo request positioned after value establishment

Each section serves a specific function in moving prospects through awareness, consideration, and decision stages.

Hypothesis: Healthcare administrators prioritize financial outcomes over technical features when evaluating software purchases. Leading with quantified savings would outperform feature-focused messaging.

Only the hero section differed between variants. All subsequent content remained identical to isolate the variable being tested—initial value proposition framing. This approach provided cleaner data on which messaging approach drove stronger initial engagement.

Webflow Optimize: Implemented split testing using Webflow's Optimize add-on with A/B testing functionality - 50/50 traffic split between variants

HubSpot Integration: Connected form submissions to HubSpot. Also, pipeline tracking from demo request through close

Analytics Strategy: Tracked demo request form submissions, ROI calculator completions with email capture, and bounce rate via GA4

Webflow Optimize tracked test performance within its own dashboard, showing views and conversion rates for each variant. However, this data remained isolated—HubSpot and Google Analytics couldn't attribute which variant drove specific demo requests because both versions used the same button elements and destinations.

Since Webflow Optimize was a newly released feature at the time, we implemented a verification system to ensure accurate cross-platform tracking:

Dual-Path Attribution System:

• Created two separate "Schedule a Demo" form pages (Version A and Version B)

• Built separate demo request forms for each version in HubSpot

• Variant A button → Demo Page A → Form A

• Variant B button → Demo Page B → Form B

• Buttons appeared identical to users but had different technical implementations

This parallel tracking system allowed HubSpot to show exactly which variant each demo request originated from, providing verification against Webflow's native metrics.

Discrepancy Discovery: When comparing data sources, Webflow Optimize's reported "conversions" exceeded the actual number of users who reached the demo scheduling pages. This suggested Webflow's conversion tracking captured broader engagement events (potentially button interactions, scroll depth, or other engagement signals) rather than strictly measuring demo form page visits.