Skip to content

Landing Page Critic Review — Handoff (2026-06-29)

Purpose: capture the conversion-critique findings + the consolidated fix plan so a fresh session can revise both Meeting Prep pages in one clean pass. The Greg Eisenberg landing-page critic was already run on both pages (this session) — findings are recorded here so nothing needs re-running.

Files in play

  • Pages to revise: landing-pages/meeting-prep/meeting-prep-uk.md and meeting-prep-sa.md
  • Brief: landing-pages/meeting-prep/brief.md
  • Guardrails — do NOT violate (read first):
  • brand/positioning.md — the LOCKED hero hook (verbatim, don't reword), the spine, the honesty guardrail, the UK/SA matrix, the DO-NOT-USE list.
  • brand/voice-profile.md — calm/credible, proof-over-hype, NO exclamation marks, conciseness rule, avoid-words (incl. growth-guru hype).
  • ICPs/icp-analysis.md — two ICPs (partner firms primary; solo/micro secondary).

Scores

Both pages: 61/80 on the Eisenberg conversion framework. The writing is excellent (craft ~64/70). The gaps are structural, not stylistic — concentrated in CTA architecture, product proof, and compliance credibility. None of the fixes should be made in a hypey register.

Consolidated fixes

Apply to BOTH pages

  1. CTA hierarchy — two co-equal CTAs everywhere = friction. Make the cost calculator the single primary; demote "Claim Your Founding Member Spot" to a quieter secondary, surfaced strongly only at the guarantee + final sections. One dominant button per block.
  2. CTA clarity — primary CTA is vague ("See What Meeting Prep Is Costing You" could read as demo/quote). Rename to "Calculate Your Prep Cost" and put the reassurance "One minute. No email, no call." directly beneath it (it's currently buried).
  3. Tie the absolute accuracy claim to its mechanism so it reads substantiated, not hyped: "reads every email, document and note on file — because it's reading the records, not remembering them."
  4. Front-load one credibility anchor near the hero (the "25 years / 50+ wealth managers" line currently arrives at section 7).
  5. Add an FAQ: "What's involved in getting started?" — answer the slow buyer's real fear: no IT project, no data migration, point it at existing emails/docs, value on the first meeting you prep.
  6. Add a conservative ROI line after the value section, in firm-size language the ICP recognises (partners + paraplanners + 1–2,000 clients). Reinforces — doesn't replace — the guarantee. Keep defensible.
  7. "admin person" → "admin team" — matches ICP 1 (3–5 partner firms, 20–50 staff, multiple admin). Scale the error surface to the firm-level buyer.
  8. Trim the catch-22 / "why it's this hard" overlap so the page reaches proof faster (both partly re-state the problem).

SA page only

  • Guarantee: add an accuracy limb (the page sells accuracy but guarantees only time): "Save at least two hours per client meeting — and walk in knowing nothing was missed — or your money back."
  • Pull the accuracy beat up from section 6 into the early value beat / trust strip — it's the SA strategic core and currently sits below a long mechanics block.
  • Pricing is now SET (no longer a placeholder): R5,000/mo (solo & small practices), R25,000/mo (3–5 partners).

UK page only

  • Add the compliance/security signals a UK advice firm screens for (gated on Open Q2 below) and tie one line to Consumer Duty / suitability evidencing — the exact buyer anxiety the catch-22 already activates.

KEEP (both critics flagged these as strong — do not weaken)

  • The honesty section ("What it does today — and where it's going"). A credibility asset for this skeptical buyer.
  • The ChatGPT/hallucination FAQ ("a confident, plausible, wrong answer").
  • The risk-reversal stack, the catch-22 / compliance-record framing, "grow the book, hold the back office," and the voice discipline.

OPEN QUESTIONS — answer at the start of the revision (these gate the proof + compliance fixes; do NOT invent either)

  1. Product proof — the #1 conversion gap (testimonials prove the builder, not the tool). Options: (a) none yet → reframe as founding-cohort early-access (honest, on-guardrail); (b) a named design partner to tease (Galileo? SA channel partner?); (c) a real result to cite; (d) informal test evidence (e.g. "caught a risk profile 14 months stale").
  2. Security/compliance — which are TRUE & citable: Azure ISO 27001 / SOC 2? Cyber Essentials (UK)? UK / SA data residency? DPA available + Consumer Duty / FAIS framing? (Dean confirmed Microsoft cloud + encryption + GDPR-aligned already.)

Honesty guardrail (carry into every edit)

Today = an intelligent, client-aware tracked checklist + reminders + fast review. Fuller AI-agent auto-execution is roadmap, not shipped. Never overclaim. No hype, no exclamation marks, no growth-guru words.

Run by: gregeisenberg-landing-page-critic (8-dimension conversion framework). Both pages scored independently; findings converged.