People just want to win the prizes. And they end up feeling left out.
The appeal was too narrow
For years this ran as a football campaign, and we figured everyone would play for their club. But not everyone wants to pick a club. Some just want a shot at the prizes.
A reason without a club
So I gave them another way in, one that has nothing to do with a club: play for one of the 48 good causes behind the lottery, not for a team.
Two honest tests
I led the design end to end (concept, art direction, funnel, email, banners) and ran structured A/B tests. Two examples: the charity option for non-fans, and darkening the area around the input fields to pull focus into the form.
What the data actually said
The charity option lifted conversion by about 6%, but not at a significant level, so I flagged it as promising, not proven. The input-field test lifted conversion by 2.7% at 90% significance. Lesson: I report what the data actually says, not what I hoped for. A direction isn’t a result until the numbers back it.
Signal, not noise
The discipline is timeless: separate signal from noise, and be honest about which is which. Today I set up and read these tests faster with AI-assisted tools, but the judgment is the same, know when a lift is real and when it’s just luck.
Hypothesis
People who don’t care about football will be more likely to play if the Eredivisie campaign includes the option to play for the 48 Friends Lottery charities, which will raise the CR
Results
Version B is better. There is no significant difference between the 2 versions. (CR difference= + 6,21%).
Hypothesis
By designing a darker area around the input fields, the focus is more on the input fields and visitors will go through the flow more easily, which increases the CR.
Results
The version (version B) with the gray IBAN field resulted in a higher conversion with a significance of 90% (CR difference = + 2.71%).
