Hypothesis_01Proposed
Scroll behaviour Content goes unseen
If the hero is reduced so the next section breaks the fold on load, more visitors reach 50% scroll depth — a visible content edge signals depth.
Tested by E1 · E2 ← Case studies 02 / 04The False Bottom · SamsungExploration · proposal, not runUX Research · CRO / Experimentation
The page looked complete. The journey wasn’t.
Great content nobody was reaching.
ObservationThe hero filled the first viewport. Nothing signalled there was more below.
SubjectSamsung · Galaxy Z Fold7 PDP
RoleCRO Specialist · sole analyst
Timeline3 weeks · independent
ScopeWalkthrough · Benchmarks · Experiment design
A structured A/B experimentation proposal — four isolated tests targeting visibility, confidence and conversion above the fold.
4Isolated experimentsdesigned · 0 run
- Behaviour inferred
- Benchmarks gathered
- Hypotheses framed
- Experiments designed
- Awaiting baseline data
- Awaiting live test
02The signal
The signal wasn’t a lack of interest. It was a lack of visibility.
Signal
Exploration stalls in the first viewport — before the persuasive content is ever reached.
Context
A premium, unfamiliar form factor at £1,700+. Photography, copy, comparison tools and finance messaging were all there — below the fold.
Evidence quality
No analytics access. Drawn from a structured walkthrough and published consumer-electronics scroll-depth benchmarks — directional inference, not Samsung data.
03The question
Visibility or persuasion?
If the content is never reached, rewriting it changes nothing and costs a quarter of work. Establishing which constraint it is was the cheapest question to answer.
04The hypotheses
Behaviour → friction → hypothesis.
Walkthrough of the live PDP · published scroll-depth benchmarks · above-the-fold comparison with competitor flagship PDPs.
Hypothesis_02Proposed
Decision friction Decisions made blind
If product navigation and the primary CTA stay pinned, add-to-cart from below-fold positions rises — intent forms while reading, and scrolling back adds friction.
Tested by E3Hypothesis_03Proposed
Confidence at the CTA Confidence gap at the CTA
If finance availability and payment marks sit next to the primary CTA, add-to-cart rises with AOV flat — affordability is a primary barrier at £1,700+.
Tested by E405The experiments
One variable each, so any result means something.
A combined redesign would tell you it worked, not why.
E1 + E2Proposed experiment
Reduce the hero. Signal the depth.
Hero cut 615px → 430px with nothing cropped, so the next section breaks the fold on load — plus a “Scroll to explore” cue built from existing type styles.
Current615px
Proposed430px
−30% - Primary metric
- Users reaching 50% scroll depth
- Guardrail
- Bounce rate · hero engagement
Consolidation target if all four win — not a live test · drag to compare
E3Proposed experiment
Keep the journey available.
Title, section links and Buy now stay pinned at any scroll depth — so intent formed mid-page doesn’t need a scroll back.
- Primary metric
- Add-to-cart from below-fold positions
- Guardrail
- Mobile conversion · scroll depth
E4Proposed experiment
Surface reassurance earlier.
Finance line and payment marks sit under the CTA in existing body grey — never louder than the button above.
- Primary metric
- Add-to-cart rate
- Guardrail
- AOV · cash-vs-finance split
06The sequence
E1 runs first — everything else depends on it.
If visibility isn’t the bottleneck, E2 and E3 lose their rationale. Testing it first either validates the programme or redirects it early.
| Order | Experiment | Impact | Confidence | Effort | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | E1Hero reduction | High | Medium | Low | Medium |
| 2 | E3Sticky product nav | High | Medium | Medium | Medium |
| 3 | E4Payment reassurance | Medium | High | Low | Low |
| 4 | E2Scroll cue | Low | Medium | Low | Low |
07The measurement
Win criteria, not results.
Test design proposal — not yet run. Every target needs confirming against a live baseline and an MDE calculation. 95% confidence, two-week minimum, one variable per test.
Evidence what was observed Hypothesis what may improve it Measurement how it would be validated
Win criteria · E1≥10%More users reaching 50% scroll depth.Guardrail · Bounce rate and hero engagement
Win criteria · E2≥8%Increase in scroll initiation within 10 seconds.Guardrail · Bounce and time-on-page
Win criteria · E3≥5%Add-to-cart uplift from below-fold positions.Guardrail · Mobile conversion and scroll depth
Win criteria · E4≥5%Add-to-cart uplift from payment reassurance.Guardrail · AOV and cash-vs-finance split
Scroll depth may only measure curiosity — which is why every win criterion resolves to add-to-cart.
08The learning
Not a content gap. An exposure gap — cheaper to fix, and easier to test.
If results are inconclusive
The constraint is persuasion, not visibility — and the next step is qualitative research, not another layout test.
What I’d research next
Session recordings and scroll heatmaps on the live page, to replace benchmark inference with observed behaviour.
My role
Sole analyst — framing, hypotheses, experiment design and win criteria.
FigmaSheets
01The Confidence GapGoToHealthcare · UX Research · CRO
02The False BottomSamsung · CRO · Experimentation
03The Trust GapCeX · UX Research · Usability
04The Laundry CompanionWiseLaundry · Product Design · Research