Call-to-action experiment: study protocol

Define the decision

This page is a proposed research protocol, not a completed study or a report of findings. The decision is: Does a permission question or a concrete meeting request work better for this defined offer and audience? The observation unit is one eligible prospect. Define the population and owner before collecting records; do not substitute an available convenience dataset without documenting the change.

Work through the procedure

1. Write both exact CTAs and a shared body. Define positive reply and meeting separately before assignment.
2. Randomly allocate prospects and keep sender, schedule, offer and follow-ups constant. Preserve assignment after any response.
3. Before collection, write the primary outcome, observation window, exclusion rules and stopping conditions. Preserve excluded observations with a reason rather than quietly removing them.
4. Pilot the procedure with fictional or owned test data, resolve ambiguous fields, and freeze a dated protocol version before the main run.

Worked example

The following is a synthetic example for this procedure, not a customer result or performance benchmark.

A: useful if I send the checklist? B: would a 15-minute review help? Primary outcome: qualified interest, not any reply
Suggested record fields: observation_id, condition, evidence_reference, outcome, exclusion_reason, reviewer, protocol_version
Status: illustrative record only; no study has been run for this page.

Read the result

A permission CTA can increase low-commitment replies without increasing meetings. Report both funnel stages with the same cohort denominator. Keep the numerator, denominator and missing evidence visible. If the available observations cannot answer the registered question, report that limitation rather than selecting a more favorable metric after collection.

Collect the evidence

Observation unit: prospect.

Eligible contacts and two exact truthful CTAs with the same offer.

Hold the rest of the message and sending policy fixed; preserve assignment on reply.

Analysis: Qualified interest per assigned prospect; meetings are a separate downstream outcome.

Download the JSON collection template under Source references. Set an owner, eligibility rules, outcome definition, observation window and sample justification before collecting records. Templates contain no participant data or results; keep original private records outside the public website.

Check before moving on

1. Name the person responsible for collection and review.
2. Check that the evidence can be inspected without exposing private messages or credentials.
3. Record deviations from the protocol and analyze their possible effect.
4. Retain a dated, redacted evidence worksheet with the final interpretation.

Limits and next action

Changing the offer together with the CTA prevents attribution. Do not present the result as a universal best CTA. Publish results only after the evidence, method and limitations have been reviewed. This protocol provides no benchmark, expected lift or completed-study claim.

Source: Method or workflow reference