Nobody publishes what converts.
Which is why the benchmarks are all made up.

Nobody can tell you, and anyone who does is quoting an unsourced number. There is no issuing authority publishing conversion benchmarks by industry — the figures in circulation trace back to vendor surveys of that vendor's own customers, typically undated and without methodology. The useful question is what your own rate is now, per template, and whether a specific change moved it. Google's guidance on evaluating third-party advice is a reasonable lens for any agency quoting one, including us. Baseline setting runs through the website audit.

Not if it is set up correctly, and Google says so directly. Its website testing guidance states that running A/B and multivariate tests is not itself a problem, and lays out the conditions: do not cloak, use temporary rather than permanent redirects for split tests, use canonicals correctly on variant URLs, and run tests only as long as necessary. The failure mode is showing crawlers one version and users another, which its spam policies name as cloaking. We audit the setup against those conditions before anything goes live, alongside technical SEO.

More than most sites have, and the number that matters is conversions rather than visits. A page with thousands of visits and a handful of monthly conversions cannot resolve a split test in any reasonable timeframe, and stopping early because the numbers look good is how teams ship changes that do nothing. Where the volume is not there we fix what is visibly broken, instrument properly, and revisit. Google's own conversion documentation covers how conversions are counted, which is worth agreeing before anyone argues about a number. Traffic-building runs through local SEO and content.

Both, and the conversion effect is the one you can act on immediately. Core Web Vitals are reported from real-world field data, and the Largest Contentful Paint documentation defines precisely what is measured. Google's page experience guidance is careful to frame these as part of a good experience rather than a single ranking lever — which is the honest framing. A slow service page loses the call whether or not it costs a position, so we remediate where the revenue is rather than on the homepage — usually alongside website maintenance.

Common, and usually fixable without a test. The recurring causes we find are a phone number that is not tappable, a form that cannot be completed one-handed, a required field that needs information nobody has on them, and content quietly collapsed away at the small breakpoint. That last one has an indexing consequence too, since Google uses mobile-first indexing — the mobile version is the version that counts. We walk it on a real device rather than a resized browser window, which is where most of these are found. Related: website design.

We can, and we will say plainly what that is: a hypothesis borrowed from someone else's audience. Some of it is close to universal — a form that works on a phone, a visible phone number, a page that loads. Beyond that, the changes that worked on another site worked on that site's buyers. Applying them is a reasonable starting point and it is not a result. What we will not do is present a best-practice checklist as though it were evidence, which is the same standard Google applies to content made to be genuinely useful rather than made because it is expected. Where a change is worth making regardless, it goes straight into landing page work.

You do, in writing, before anyone reports a number. Most reporting disputes turn out to be two people counting different events: one counting form submissions, the other counting qualified leads, a third counting calls that lasted more than thirty seconds. Google's conversion documentation covers the mechanics of counting; the definition itself is a business decision and it belongs to you. We write it down, instrument to it, and report against it — including calls, which are the conversion most often untracked. That pairs with CRM integration.

Until it reaches the sample size agreed before it started, and no longer than necessary. Both halves matter. Stopping early because a variant is ahead is the single most common way teams convince themselves of something untrue. Running indefinitely is its own problem — Google's testing guidance specifically advises running tests only as long as needed, since a permanent test starts to look like a permanent difference between what crawlers and users see. We set the end condition in the hypothesis, before the build. Related: landing pages.

You get told it was inconclusive. That is a real answer and it is more useful than a narrated one, because it tells you the change is not worth the engineering and the next hypothesis should go somewhere else. The alternative — presenting a flat result as a directional win — is how a year of testing produces a list of improvements and no measurable difference. Our reporting separates measured data from observed patterns for exactly this reason, the same discipline described in AI visibility monitoring. Google's guidance on evaluating advice applies here too.

Direct fixes land immediately — an untracked phone number, a broken mobile form, a page that takes eleven seconds. Those are usually found in the first fortnight and do not need a test to justify. Tested changes take as long as the volume dictates, which is the honest constraint. What nobody should promise is a percentage: there is no published baseline to promise against, and Google states that even meeting every technical requirement does not guarantee an outcome. What we commit to is a readiness verdict, a prioritized queue, and a number you can check. Start with an A.R.C. Report.