market-landing

# Landing Page CRO Analysis

Standalone CRO teardown for a single landing page. Produces a section-by-section score, prioritized fixes, and A/B test hypotheses. Unlike `market-audit`, this skill does not fan out - it runs end-to-end in the parent and writes one report.

## When to Use
- User supplies a landing-page URL and asks for conversion optimization, CRO review, or signup-rate help
- Slash: `/market-landing <url>` or `/market landing <url>` (via `market` orchestrator)
- After `/market-audit` if the funnel dimension flagged the landing page as the bottleneck

## When NOT to Use
- Whole-site audit across many pages - use `market-audit`
- Copy-only rewrite without conversion-mechanic analysis - use `market-copy`
- Full funnel (ad → landing → email → checkout) - use `market-funnel`

*Authoring a fresh sales/squeeze/OTO/landing page from a brief - use `/convert <page-type>` (business-conversion pack). market-landing audits existing pages; convert-pack authors fresh ones.*

## Inputs
- `<url>` - required. Bare domains are normalized to `https://<url>`.
- `out_path` - optional. Default: `build_report_path("business-marketing", f"landing {url}")`.

## Workflow

### Step 1 - Fetch the page

Prefer `web_extract` for the readable text + visible CTAs. If the analysis needs raw HTML for above-the-fold structure, form field counts, button colors, or `<meta>` tags, use `terminal` + curl, then parse with `analyze_page.py` (shared with `market-audit`):

```bash
curl -L --max-filesize 200000 -A "Wayland-CRO-Bot/1.0" \
     -o .wayland/tmp/landing-<slug>.html "<url>"
```

```python
import sys
sys.path.insert(0, "business-marketing/market-audit/scripts")
from analyze_page import analyze
parsed = analyze(url)  # {seo, content, conversion, trust, tracking, technical, scores, ...}
```

Children-blocked tools do not apply here - this skill runs in the parent agent loop only.

### Step 2 - Identify the page type

Page type sets benchmark expectations and scoring weights.

| Page Type | Primary Goal | Good CR | Great CR |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead Capture | Email/form submission | 5-10% | 15%+ |
| SaaS Signup | Free trial or freemium signup | 3-7% | 10%+ |
| E-commerce Product | Add to cart / Purchase | 2-4% | 5%+ |
| Webinar Registration | Register for event | 20-30% | 40%+ |
| App Download | Install app | 10-15% | 20%+ |
| Waitlist | Join waitlist | 15-25% | 35%+ |
| Consultation Booking | Schedule a call | 5-10% | 15%+ |
| Nonprofit Donation | Make a donation | 2-5% | 8%+ |

### Step 3 - Run the 7-point CRO framework

Score each section 1-10. Weights are fixed; total weighted score is reported out of 100.

#### Section 1 - Hero (weight 25%)

First-screen content. ~80% of conversion decisions begin here.

Checklist:
- [ ] Headline is visible within 2 seconds of page load
- [ ] Headline communicates the primary benefit (not a feature)
- [ ] Headline is under 10 words
- [ ] Subheadline expands on the headline with specificity
- [ ] Primary CTA is above the fold
- [ ] CTA button color contrasts with the background
- [ ] CTA text is action-oriented (not "Submit" or "Click Here")
- [ ] Hero image or video supports the message (not generic stock)
- [ ] Trust badges or social proof visible above the fold
- [ ] Page loads in under 3 seconds
- [ ] No navigation menu competing with the CTA (for dedicated landing pages)

Scoring criteria:
- 9-10: Headline is benefit-driven, specific, and compelling. CTA is clear and contrasting. Visual supports the message. Trust indicators present.
- 7-8: Strong headline and CTA but missing one element (trust badges, supporting visual, or specificity).
- 5-6: Generic headline or weak CTA. Missing multiple above-the-fold elements.
- 3-4: Headline is feature-focused or vague. CTA is below the fold or unclear.
- 1-2: No clear headline or CTA. Visitor cannot understand the offer within 5 seconds.

#### Section 2 - Value Proposition (weight 20%)

Checklist:
- [ ] Clear statement of what the product/service does
- [ ] Specific outcomes or results promised
- [ ] Differentiation from alternatives (why THIS solution)
- [ ] Target audience is clear (visitor knows if this is for them)
- [ ] Benefits are quantified where possible (save X hours, increase Y%)
- [ ] Value proposition is scannable (not buried in paragraphs)

Evaluate using the 4U framework:
1. **Useful** - Does it solve a real problem the visitor has?
2. **Urgent** - Is there a reason to act now?
3. **Unique** - Is it different from competitors?
4. **Ultra-specific** - Are claims concrete, not vague?

#### Section 3 - Social Proof (weight 15%)

Types of social proof, ranked by persuasion power:
1. Revenue/results metrics ("$2.4B processed", "500K users")
2. Named customer testimonials with photos, titles, and companies
3. Recognizable client logos
4. Case studies with specific results
5. Star ratings and review counts
6. Media mentions ("As seen in...")
7. Certifications and awards
8. User-generated content
9. Social media follower counts

Checklist:
- [ ] At least 2 types of social proof present
- [ ] Testimonials include real names and photos
- [ ] Testimonials mention specific results or outcomes
- [ ] Social proof is placed near decision points (close to CTAs)
- [ ] Numbers are specific (not rounded - "11,847" beats "10,000+")
- [ ] Logos are recognizable to the target audience
- [ ] Social proof is recent and relevant

#### Section 4 - Features and Benefits (weight 15%)

Checklist:
- [ ] Features are translated into benefits (what the feature DOES for the user)
- [ ] Content is scannable (icons, bullet points, short paragraphs)
- [ ] Visual hierarchy guides the eye through features
- [ ] Most important features/benefits are listed first
- [ ] Each feature section has a clear mini-headline
- [ ] Screenshots, demos, or visuals accompany feature descriptions
- [ ] Feature list is comprehensive but not overwhelming (3-7 key features)

Feature-to-benefit translation check:
- Bad: "AI-powered analytics dashboard"
- Good: "See exact