We Got Fewer Clicks and Made More Money. Weird.

We had a Welcome email that was doing what most “good” emails do. Solid opens. Decent clicks. Nothing obviously broken.

But revenue-wise? It felt… soft. Like it was doing everything except convincing people to actually buy.

So instead of doing the usual marketer thing (more urgency! bigger buttons! brighter colors!), we did the opposite.

We made it calmer. Slower. More patient.

Then…. like MAGIC… it started printing. 💪 (Yayy!)

What We Changed

This was Welcome Email #3. Late in the flow. People already knew the brand.

Control (Version A):

• Led with the Founders Bundle offer

• Bonuses up top. Free shipping. Extras everywhere.

• CTA screamed “Claim My Bonus Gifts”

Looked like a deal email. Acted like a deal email.

What Happened

Here’s where it gets fun.

• Revenue per Recipient:
  $0.167 (Variant) vs $0.039 (Control) → +326%

• Order Rate:
  0.026% vs 0.052%→ 2× more buyers

• Click Rate:
  0.32% vs 0.41% → Clicks went down

Yes. Fewer clicks. No, that’s not a typo. Yes, it was a bummer to start. BUT!

The variant with worse CTR made over 4× the revenue per person and more than 2× the total revenue overall.

If you’re optimizing for clicks, this test would’ve lied to your face.

Why It Worked

Not all clicks are created equal.

Version A invited curiosity.
Version B demanded conviction.

When you lead with bonuses and gifts, you attract browsers. People clicking to “see what’s in the box.”

When you lead with outcomes, you attract buyers who already decided they have the problem.

Variant B filtered harder. Fewer people raised their hand. But the ones who did came with wallets open and higher AOV.

We didn’t fully “predict” this. We crossed our fingers. The data bullied us into being right.

CTR dropped and everyone freaked out in theory. We ignored that, stayed ugly, and let revenue do the talking.

Closing Insight

If your email looks like a deal before someone believes the value, you’re training clicks, not customers.

This wasn’t a design win. Or a CTA win. It was a sequencing win.

Outcome → proof → explanation → then offer.

Few understand this. 🧘