4 things to know from this article
- Four things separate a good coaching homepage from a poor one. Everything else is close to noise.
- The first one on its own is worth more than the other three put together.
- 82% of coaching sites skip the second one entirely.
- Two thirds skip the third.
Most advice about coaching homepages is somebody's opinion about their own homepage.
This isn't. We scored 10,954 live coaching websites out of 10, split them into the ones that did well and the ones that didn't, and looked at what the two groups actually do differently. In this article I'm showing you the four things that came out, in the order they should appear.
One. Who it's for and what you fix
At the very top, before anybody scrolls.
Sites that scored well average 9.25 out of 10 on whether a stranger can tell inside five seconds. Poor sites average 2.92. That's a gap of 6.33 points, and it's bigger than every other gap we measured.
It goes in the headline, not the sub-heading and not the about page. A woman who can't tell in five seconds doesn't scroll down to find out, she goes back to the search results.
"Coaching for women whose sleep fell apart when the menopause started" does the job. "Helping you live your best life" doesn't, and 49.2% of the market is closer to the second one.
Two. What it costs
65% of the sites that scored well show a price. 7.3% of the poor ones do.
Across the whole market, 82.3% show nothing at all. It's the single most-skipped thing on a coaching homepage.
I understand why. Pricing feels like something to discuss on a call, and you're worried about scaring people off. But the man reading your page is going to guess, and he'll guess badly in whichever direction stops him enquiring.
It doesn't have to be a number. "Most clients work with me for three months, from £X" does it. A range does it. Anything that stops him guessing does it.
Three. Proof a stranger could check
89.5% of the good sites have some. 18.5% of the poor ones do. Two thirds of the entire market shows none.
Proof means something costly to fake. A result with a number on it. A named client who agreed to be named. A body that accredits you. A thing you wrote that somebody else published.
"Clients say I'm a great listener" isn't proof. It's a claim with quotation marks round it.
This is the second-widest gap after clarity, and it's the one most coaches think they've covered when they haven't.
Four. Something of you
90.7% of the good sites have a story on the page. A third of the whole market has nothing human anywhere.
Not your life history. A reason why you do this work, and something that tells her there's a person on the other end of the form.
It goes fourth because it's the one that turns a page you believe into a person you'd contact. Put it first and you've written an about page with a button on it.
What about everything else?
Have a clear next step, but stop worrying about it. Good sites score 5.90 on that and poor ones score 5.39. Everybody's already got a button.
The same goes for how the site's built. Technical health averages 9 out of 10 across the market and separates good from poor by 1.3 points. It's the half of the job most coaches spend the money on, and it's close to solved already.
Does the order actually matter?
Yes, and more than the list does.
She reads top to bottom and leaves whenever she stops recognising herself. Put the story first and she's still wondering whether you're for her while she's reading about your training. Put the price first and she's pricing something she doesn't understand yet.
Is four too few? It's what the data separates on. I'd rather give you four things that showed up in 10,954 sites than twelve that sound sensible.
Does this work for every niche? Mostly, though health coaches have their own version of the clarity problem. The order holds either way.
Questions coaches ask about this
What should be at the top of a coaching homepage?
Who it's for and what you fix, in the headline. Sites that do it score 9.25 out of 10 on the five-second read against 2.92 for the ones that don't, which is the widest gap in the whole scorecard.
Should a coaching homepage show prices?
The evidence points that way. 65% of the sites that scored well show a price, against 7.3% of the poor ones, and 82.3% of the market shows nothing.
How long should a coaching homepage be?
Long enough for the four things. Length didn't separate the good sites from the poor ones in anything we measured, so write what those four need and stop.
What counts as proof on a coaching website?
Something costly to fake. A result with a number, a named client, an accreditation, published work. Two thirds of coaching websites have none of it.