Concept test

Tangible Landing Page Perception Survey

Evaluation of two marketing solution landing pages for Tangible among marketing-oriented respondents.
STUDY DESIGNAt a glance

How the study was run

01
Recruitment and screening
Respondents were screened on work function, campaign platform experience, recent campaign involvement, work areas, and current title.
02
Monadic page review
Each respondent evaluated two landing pages one at a time and answered the same set of open-end and rating questions for each page.
03
Comparative choice
After the monadic reviews, respondents chose which page was more compelling overall and explained why.
04
Audience-fit assessment
Respondents then assessed whether the pages were well-suited for VPs of Marketing at B2B SaaS companies.
At a glance
110

Completed respondents

2

Landing pages tested

8–12 min

Survey length

Project description stated an 8–12 minute anonymous survey.

SAMPLEn=110

Who responded

Primary work function
70%

Marketing / Growth (77 of 110)

22%

Sales / Business development (24)

8%

Product management (9)

Paid campaign platforms managed
Google Ads
65.5%
LinkedIn Campaign Manager
60%
Meta Ads Manager
52.7%
TikTok Ads Manager
36.4%
X (Twitter) Ads
32.7%
Most direct work areas
Lifecycle and email marketing
48.2%
Content and social media
47.3%
Brand and creative
45.5%
Marketing operations and analytics
40.9%
Events and field marketing
37.3%
Recent campaign involvement
39%

Last week (43 of 110)

24%

3 months back (26)

23%

1 month back (25)

01 / FINDINGTop-line
Overall winner

Built-for non researchers wins overall, but by a competitive margin.

57.3%
Chose Built-for non researchers as more compelling
42.7%
Chose Speed First
+14.6 pts
Preference lead
PREFERENCEn=110

Which landing page was more compelling overall?

Respondents were asked to choose between the two evaluated variants.
Built-for non researchers
57.3%
Speed First
42.7%

Built-for non researchers leads, but the split is not overwhelming; both pages remain competitive.

Which of the two landing pages, you evaluated in earlier questions, is more compelling overall?
TOP-2-BOX (4-5)Message Clarity

This page clearly communicates how Tangible helps marketing teams

Built-for non researchers has the higher clarity score.
Built-for non researchers
76.4%
Speed First
70.0%
Clarity favors Built-for non researchers.

The lead is 6.4 points on Top-2-Box agreement. Both pages are broadly understandable, but Built-for non researchers communicates Tangible’s role more clearly.

Please rate this page for each statement below.
TOP-2-BOX (4-5)Brand Credibility

Tangible feels like a credible survey platform based on this page

Credibility is high for both variants, with a smaller edge for the winner.
Built-for non researchers
77.3%
Speed First
70.9%
Credibility is a strength for both pages.

Built-for non researchers leads by 6.4 points, but both variants clear the 70% mark. The comparison summary describes credibility as a mild advantage more often than a decisive one.

Please rate this page for each statement below.
TOP-2-BOX (4-5)Perceived Differentiation

This page makes Tangible feel different from other survey/research tools

Differentiation is better on Built-for non researchers, but still softer than clarity and credibility.
Built-for non researchers
57.3%
Speed First
46.4%
Differentiation remains a mid-tier score for both concepts.

Built-for non researchers leads by 10.9 points, the largest spread after trial interest. Even so, differentiation is less established than clarity or credibility for either page.

Please rate this page for each statement below.
TOP-2-BOX (4-5)Trial Interest

I would consider trying Tangible after seeing this page

The winner’s clearest practical advantage is on consideration.
Built-for non researchers
55.5%
Speed First
40.0%
Trial interest is the biggest measured gap.

Built-for non researchers leads by 15.5 points on Top-2-Box consideration. This is the largest practical separation in the matrix and one reason it wins overall despite a still-competitive preference split.

Please rate this page for each statement below.
TOP-2-BOX (4-5)Professional Appeal

This page is appealing to me as a marketing professional

Appeal is high for both pages and nearly even.
Built-for non researchers
72.7%
Speed First
71.8%
Professional appeal does not separate the concepts much.

Only 0.9 points separate the two variants on appeal. The winner’s advantage comes more from clarity, differentiation, and especially trial interest than from broad appeal alone.

Please rate this page for each statement below.
QUAL THEMESBy concept

How each page is being read

Synthesized from open-end interpretation, clarity, and positive-driver themes.
A
Speed First
fast
efficient
turnaround
workflow
pricing
comparison
credible
needs proof
B
Built-for non researchers
accessible
relevant
supportive
clearer
non-expert
positioning
credible
process questions
In your own words, what is the main idea of this page?
WHY IT WONReadout
Interpretation

The winning page feels more role-relevant, while both pages still need more proof.

Comparative explanations centered most often on stronger role relevance (47.5%), with smaller contributions from a more compelling speed promise (22.9%) and higher credibility or trust (13.6%). At the same time, both concepts drew frequent requests for more social proof and examples.

1
Built-for non researchers solves a clearer role problem

Respondents most often read it as addressing lack of research support (78.8%). Its audience signal also extends beyond marketing leadership to teams without researchers (33.1%).

2
Speed First lands one strong message, but narrower

Speed First is interpreted very consistently as fast turnaround research (75.4%) that solves slow feedback cycles (78.0%), but it trails on every measured attribute.

3
Proof remains the main weakness for both pages

More social proof was the top requested change for Speed First (58.1%) and Built-for non researchers (53.4%). Missing proof and case examples was also the top gap in audience-fit feedback (39.8%).

NEXT MOVEAction
Recommendation

Lead with Built-for non researchers, but fix proof and process explanation before broad rollout.

Lead
Primary variant
Use Built-for non researchers as the lead page
  • —It wins direct choice, 57.3% to 42.7%.
  • —It leads on all five measured attributes.
  • —Its largest practical edge is on trial interest: 55.5% vs. 40.0%.
Keep
Message to preserve
Retain Speed First’s clear speed promise as supporting language
  • —Speed First is interpreted consistently as fast turnaround research (75.4%).
  • —More compelling speed promise was the second-most common comparative rationale at 22.9%.
  • —This suggests speed is still a valuable supporting cue even if it is not the best lead frame.
Fix
Refinement priorities
Add proof, examples, and clearer workflow detail
  • —Social proof is the top requested change on both pages.
  • —Built-for non researchers shows concentrated process confusion: 60.2% cite process or workflow as the main unclear area.
  • —Audience-fit feedback also calls for proof and case examples (39.8%) plus clearer business outcomes (28.8%).