Landing page structure: a practical guide

There is no clever trick in this one, just a handful of decisions worth making deliberately. This guide covers what landing page structure actually involves, where it usually goes wrong, and how to tell whether yours is in reasonable shape.

The measurable part of design is whether people can find what they came for and act on it without hesitating. Nothing below assumes a large team or a large budget — most of it is a decision somebody has to make and then write down.

What it costs to ignore

Lead with the outcome, not the company history. There is a version of this that is over-engineered, and it is worth avoiding. It is the sort of thing that looks like polish right up until it costs you an enquiry.

For most businesses the question is not whether this matters but how much of it is worth doing right now. That depends on what you are trying to achieve in the next few months, not on best practice in the abstract. Where this goes wrong is almost never a lack of knowledge.

How we handle it

One primary action per page beats five competing links. Where this goes wrong is almost never a lack of knowledge. Budget a little time for it every quarter and it never becomes a project of its own.

Design decisions are the ones clients feel most confident arguing about, which makes it worth separating taste from evidence early. The version that works in practice is usually less elaborate than the version described in the guides.

Proof belongs near the ask, not buried at the bottom. It is worth being explicit about, because assumptions differ quietly. It is worth deciding this deliberately rather than inheriting whatever the last person set up.

A working checklist

If you want a quick read on where you stand, work through this. Anything you cannot answer confidently is where to start.

• Lead with the outcome, not the company history
• One primary action per page beats five competing links
• Proof belongs near the ask, not buried at the bottom
• Someone is named as the owner, not just assumed to be
• There is a date in the calendar to review it again
• The decision and the reasoning behind it are written down somewhere findable
• You could explain the current setup to a new hire in five minutes

Common failure modes

The most common failure is not doing this badly. It is doing it once, during a launch, and never revisiting it. Circumstances move, the setup does not, and the gap widens quietly until something breaks or somebody notices the numbers.

• It was configured during a launch and has not been touched since
• Different people in the business believe different things are true about it
• There is no way to tell whether the last change helped or hurt
• The only person who understands it has left, or is about to

Consistency is the quiet half of design work: it rarely gets complimented, and its absence is noticed immediately. There is a version of this that is over-engineered, and it is worth avoiding.

How we approach it

On our projects this gets handled during the build rather than added afterwards, because retrofitting it costs several times more than including it. We write down what was decided and why, so the next person to touch it is not guessing.

If you are working with someone else, the questions worth asking are simple: who owns this, how will we know it is working, and what happens when it needs to change?

A reasonable first step

Pick the single item from the checklist above that would cause the most trouble if it turned out to be wrong. Fix that one, confirm it worked, then move on. If any of that sounds like a description of your current setup, it is fixable.