Case study 04 · Fintech · Paid search · Conversion design
Kurv landing page: designing for the call, not the click
Kurv's main Google Ads landing page led with a four-step quiz, with the phone number tucked into the header. The redesign was built around one bet: a merchant choosing a payment processor converts better on a call with a specialist than on a form. The page now makes calling the obvious first move, and puts proof that someone will pick up right next to the button.
- Form → CallThe primary path changed from a four-step quiz to a phone call.
- Header → HeroThe phone number went from a small header link to the main button, plus a sticky Call button on mobile.
- Proof at the buttonLive availability and a privacy line sit right next to the call button.
- ↑ CallsCall volume rose after launch. Directional, not cleanly attributed. See Results.
01 Context
This is where Kurv's paid traffic lands.
Someone searches for a payment processor, clicks a Kurv ad, and arrives on this page. Every visit is paid for, so the page has one job: turn that click into a conversation with sales.
I owned the layout redesign, coordinated with the developer who built it, and QA'd the pages before launch.
02 Problem
The page asked for information before it had earned any trust.
The original page led with a four-step qualification quiz asking for monthly processing volume. The phone number was there, but small in the header next to "13 agents online." The page read like a lead form, and it treated the visitor like someone browsing, not someone who had just clicked an ad because they needed to solve a problem now.
The page was built to capture a lead. It needed to start a conversation.
03 Discovery
Merchants arrive with questions a form can't answer.
Choosing a payment processor is a considered decision with real switching costs. The questions merchants have are specific to their business:
- Will it work with my setup?Compatibility with their existing POS and hardware.
- What about my contract?What happens to the processor they're locked into today.
- Is it actually cheaper?A real comparison against what they pay now.
A form captures an email address. A specialist on the phone can answer all three and close the sale on the same call.
04 Insights
The hesitation was trust, not access.
- This is a considered purchase.It doesn't behave like a low-commitment consumer sign-up, so the page shouldn't either.
- Visibility alone won't make people call.Calling a stranger about your business's money needs a reason to feel safe.
- Proof sat away from the action.Ratings and "13 agents online" were on the page, but away from the quiz where visitors made their choice.
05 Hypothesis
Make calling the first move, and make it feel safe.
For this audience and this kind of decision, a phone call converts better than a form. If the page makes calling the obvious first step and puts trust signals at the moment of decision, more qualified merchants will call.
06 Solution
Four changes, one goal: get the merchant on the phone.
- Decision
- Make the phone number the main button.
- Why
- A full-width orange button with the number now leads the form card. What was a small header link became the page's primary action.
- Trade-off
- Visitors who don't want to dial need another path, so the card offers one.
- Decision
- Put proof right next to the button.
- Why
- "Specialists online now · avg wait < 30 sec" sits directly above the call button and a privacy line sits under the form. Google, Trustpilot and BBB ratings stay beside the headline, and a bar at the top adds today's approvals. This was the bigger lever.
- Trade-off
- More signals competing for attention, so each one is kept to a single short line.
- Decision
- Replace the quiz with a callback request.
- Why
- Some visitors prefer not to dial. "Or have us call you" asks for three fields instead of four quiz steps, and still ends in a conversation.
- Trade-off
- Less qualification data up front. The specialist gathers it on the call. Fewer form leads, by design.
- Decision
- Lead with what happens next, not who the page is for.
- Why
- "Built For High-Risk Merchants" labelled the audience. "Talk to a real human. Start accepting payments tomorrow." tells visitors what the call gets them, and the bullets answer pricing and approval questions up front.
- Trade-off
- The high-risk segment is no longer named in the headline.
| Before: form-first | After: call-first | |
|---|---|---|
| Hero | Dark, heavy | Light, calmer |
| Headline | "Built For High-Risk Merchants" | "Talk to a real human. Start accepting payments tomorrow." |
| First interaction | 4-step quiz asking for monthly volume | Full-width call button |
| Phone number | Small, in the header | The primary button |
| Availability | "13 agents online," in the header | "Specialists online now · avg wait < 30 sec," above the button |
| Backup path | None: the quiz is the only path | Three-field callback form |
The biggest change wasn't making the number bigger. It was putting proof that someone will answer right next to the button.
07 Test design
Why the phone number wasn't tested on its own.
It's tempting to isolate one variable and test it cleanly. Here, that would have tested the wrong thing. Making the number bigger on a page that still feels cold and transactional doesn't fix the real hesitation, which is trust.
Shipping the number and the trust signals together reflected the actual hypothesis: visibility and credibility had to move together, or neither would matter. The cost is real and worth naming: I can't attribute the lift to either change on its own.
08 Build
Designed for a single goal, built with one developer.
I worked directly with the developer who implemented the page, from layout through to the placement and behaviour of the call buttons. Before launch, I QA'd the pages on desktop and mobile to confirm everything worked as designed, including the tap-to-call buttons and the callback form.
On mobile, visitors get two chances to call, and both are tap-to-call. A compact Call button sits in the sticky header, so it follows them down the page. The full phone number leads the form card, with the callback form right under it.
The bright green announcement bar scrolls away with the page, while the sticky header with the Call button stays. The bar adds urgency on arrival without taking space from the content below.
09 Results
More calls, from callers further along. No clean number, and why.
- ↑ CallsCall volume from this page increased after launch.
- Warmer leadsSales reported callers from this page were further into their decision than the average form lead.
- ↓ FormsForm conversion dipped slightly, consistent with visitors choosing the call path instead.
I don't have an attributable percentage to quote. Call tracking on this project wasn't rigorous enough to separate this change from shifts in ad spend and targeting that happened at the same time. Next time I'd push for dedicated tracking numbers for each landing page variant from day one, not after the fact.
10 Reflection
What I'd take into the next project.
- 01
The obvious fix is rarely the whole fix.
"Add a bigger phone number" is easy to ship and easy to point to. On its own it wouldn't have moved anything. The trust signals next to it did more of the work.
- 02
Measure before you change.
The biggest gap on this project was instrumentation, not design. Without per-variant tracking from day one, the project ended up with a real result and no clean number to put next to it.
- 03
Not every conversion path should look the same.
Making the call path primary was a bet on this category, a considered B2B purchase with real switching costs. For a different kind of product, I'd revisit it.