When we narrowed our focus to solar, optimizing our lead form (which connects the solar-curious to solar installers) became critical — not just to drive revenue, but also to help users take that first step. By combining A/B testing with microiterations, we increased the conversion rate from 2.3% to 7.38% and doubled solar orders YoY*.
Role
Research, strategy, A/B testing, UX design
After our shift to focusing on solar, lead generation became our top priority, making conversion rate improvements essential.
Increase conversions
By increasing conversions quickly, we could establish a steady revenue stream to support the development of other user-focused features with longer-term benefits.
We leaned into small, rapid iterations across multiple categories, validating ideas with A/B testing.
We focused on form submissions as our main metric, prioritizing quantity over quality at the start. Later, we switched to percentage of leads accepted by the installer.
We faced challenges tied to traffic volume, user behavior, and industry-specific trends, each requiring careful strategy and thoughtful solutions.
Prioritized high-impact tests and extended timelines to ensure reliable results.
Tailored tests and messaging to each traffic segment for more effective engagement.
Improved UX let in more unqualified leads so we implemented several filters to ensure quality leads we could get paid on.
I worked with leadership to prioritize changes and with engineering to implement them for quick, actionable insights. Here are a few of them:
Thanks to our experimentation, we more than doubled conversion rates, getting them to industry standard levels, and established a baseline flow of revenue for our new product.
2.3%
Conversion rate at start of project
7.38%
Conversion rate when I was done with it2,394
Orders in 2023
4,804
Orders in 2024Reaching out goal unshackaled us from this priority and allowed us to move on to expanding our product further.
*Our overall conversion rate increased significantly due to wide-ranging experimentation across funnel steps and different disciplines, and depending on traffic source. Technically, we started with a 0.26% conversion rate but including that without context paints an inaccurate picture.
We tested two lead generation forms: a short, minimalist flow with only essential fields and an extended, multi-step flow with one question at a time. The short form aimed to reduce friction, while the extended flow leveraged the endowment effect: users who invest time in a process are likelier to complete it. Surprisingly, the extended flow outperformed the short form, with an 8.7% versus 4.56% conversion rate.
In the multistep flow, we wanted to capture drop-offs at the final step, where users were asked to provide their phone number. Recognizing not everyone is willing to share it, we offered a free PDF guide in exchange for their email address, which we used to engage them through an email funnel to prepare them for their solar journey. This experiment is currently ongoing.
I revised the form copy to better communicate the benefits of completion, set clearer expectations, and build trust. For example, I changed "Enter your address to make sure we’re talking about the right place" (redundant with Google Maps) to "Your address helps us assess the solar potential of your roof," which highlights a direct benefit aligned with user goals. Analytics showed a slight improvement, suggesting a neutral to positive effect.
A consultant specializing in solar lead gen suggested we remove the "Next" button on the form and automatically advance the user to the next step upon selecting an answer, making the process more frictionless. Makes sense, right? In fact, the flow without buttons converted at 6.2% while the old, with-button flow converted at 9.8%. An important reminder that user behavior is often unpredictable.