Overview
Where we came in
An independent physiotherapy practice with three treatment rooms and a website that read like a brochure. The practice was reluctant to publish prices, on the assumption that cost transparency would attract only bargain hunters. Search data and the enquiry inbox both suggested the opposite. Again, this work was about the enquiry process, not about treatment.
The baseline problem
- No prices anywhere on the site, while 41% of branded search queries included the words cost or price.
- No indication of waiting time, and the second most common inbox question was how soon someone could be seen.
- The enquiry form asked for a preferred appointment time before establishing whether any were available.
- The mobile call button sat below the fold on every service page.
Hypothesis
What we expected, and why
Written before the test was built. Because we observed X, we expect Y, measured by Z.
Because visitors cannot judge cost or availability without making contact, we expect that publishing session prices and current typical waiting times will increase enquiry form submissions, without increasing the share of enquiries that go nowhere.
Experiment plan
How the test was set up
Sample size and stop date were both fixed before launch, so no result here was called early.
Two-arm split test across all service pages. Control kept the existing pages. Variant added a session price table, a current typical waiting time updated weekly from the practice diary, and a sticky call button on mobile.
- Primary metric
- Enquiry form submissions per service page visitor
- Traffic
- ~7,300 service page visitors per arm
- Duration
- 35 days, extended to reach the pre-calculated sample size
- Guardrails
- Share of enquiries that convert to a booked appointment, to catch a drop in enquiry quality
- Average enquiry-to-booking time
- Phone call volume, so gains are not just shifted between channels
Results
What actually moved
| Metric | Control | Variant | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enquiry submissions per visitor | 5.84% | 7.83% | +34.1% |
| Enquiry to booked appointment | 58.2% | 61.7% | +3.5pp |
| Mobile enquiry rate | 4.91% | 7.24% | +47.5% |
| Phone call volume | 112 / mo | 119 / mo | +6.3% |
| Average enquiry-to-booking time | 2.8 days | 1.9 days | -0.9 days |
The fear was that price transparency would bring in worse enquiries. The conversion rate from enquiry to booked appointment went up rather than down, because people arriving at the form had already accepted the price. Phone volume rose slightly too, so this was not channel cannibalisation.
What changed
Shipped to production
- Session prices published on every service page.
- A typical current waiting time shows on each service page, updated weekly from the practice diary.
- The enquiry form asks for a preferred time only after showing what is realistically available.
- A sticky call button on mobile, positioned to avoid the browser chrome on smaller devices.
Next experiments
Already in the queue
- 01Test a block-of-sessions price alongside the single-session price.
- 02Test practitioner profiles on service pages, since named practitioners appear in search queries.
- 03Test an online booking option against the current enquiry-first model.