Statistics
Local business conversion rate statistics, traced to source
What a good conversion rate actually looks like, by device, traffic source, form length and page speed — from real platform data, not a survey of opinions.
This is one of the stronger-sourced pages in this hub: the headline figure comes from actual platform performance data across tens of millions of visitors, not a survey asking people what they think. That's worth noting, because most 'conversion rate statistics' content on the internet is built on much softer ground.
The honest caveat sits right alongside it: this data describes businesses that already built a dedicated, conversion-focused landing page — a self-selected, more sophisticated population than local businesses generally.
This page also covers a scope distinction worth stating plainly: 'conversion rate' here means website-visit-to-lead — the share of visitors, from any channel, who contact the business.
That is not the same measurement as the ad-click-to-lead conversion rate covered on this site's local lead generation statistics page, and the two figures should never be compared directly against each other. If you want the practical version of what follows rather than the sourcing, the local website conversion guide works through the same variables as fixes.
How the grading works
The grading is deliberately unforgiving. A statistic from a good organisation still earns a C if the sample size is not published beside the number, because a reader cannot check what they cannot see.
Cite freely
Primary source, dated, with sample and method published. Quote it, with its scope attached.
Cite with scope
Real research with a published sample, but narrower than the way it is usually quoted — self-reported, or one country, or one kind of business.
Cite with caution
Named source and plausible method, but the sample size or methodology is not published where the number is. Attribute it, do not lean on it.
Do not cite
Untraceable, undated, or superseded by later changes to the thing it measured. These are the numbers keeping the roundups alive.
The median landing page converts at 6.6% — and local service pages tend to beat that
This is one of the better-sourced benchmarks on the site: a large platform dataset rather than a survey of opinions. What a single point of conversion rate is actually worth to a specific business depends on its own traffic and job value — the lead value calculator is the quicker way to answer that than a benchmark is.
6.6%
Grade Amedian landing page conversion rate across all industries.
What it does not say This is genuine platform-scale data with a disclosed sample, not a survey — the strongest sourcing on this specific page. The limitation is who's in the sample: businesses that chose to build a dedicated landing page on a conversion-focused platform are, by definition, more conversion-conscious than the average local business with a standard website.
~8.5%
Grade Cmedian conversion rate for home-services lead-generation landing pages specifically, above the all-industry median.
What it does not say Graded down from the overall figure specifically because the exact home-services sample size isn't broken out separately in Unbounce's own published report — this figure was corroborated across secondary sources rather than confirmed directly against Unbounce's per-industry page. Directionally credible; treat the precise decimal with some caution.
What this means for reading the rest of this page
6.6% is a single-number benchmark, and single numbers hide the variables that actually decide where a specific business lands relative to it. The sections below break that variance apart by the factors Unbounce's own dataset, and others, can actually measure: which device the visitor is on, which channel sent them, how fast the page loaded, how long the form is, and whether the conversion event is a form at all rather than a phone call.
None of these factors move a conversion rate independently — they compound. A mobile visitor from paid social hitting a slow page with a nine-field form is not failing to convert for one reason but for four stacked ones, and fixing only the most visible of the four often produces a disappointing result.
That compounding is why this site's FOUND → TRUSTED → CHOSEN framework treats conversion as its own stage rather than a footnote to traffic: every factor on this page sits after the visitor has already been found, and none of them are fixed by more of them arriving.
Desktop still out-converts mobile, even though mobile now carries most of the traffic
The gap is real but not uniform — it depends heavily on what the visitor is being asked to do, which is the more useful finding than the headline number.
8%
Grade Cdesktop landing pages convert better than mobile landing pages, on average, even though roughly 83% of the visits in the same dataset happen on mobile devices.
What it does not say Unbounce discloses the direction and size of the relative gap but not the absolute mobile and desktop conversion rates for the blended, all-industry figure — usable to say devices differ, not to reconstruct what either device converts at specifically.
23.6% vs 19.4%
Grade Cdesktop versus mobile conversion rate specifically for ecommerce landing pages — a 4.2-point gap, wider than the blended average.
What it does not say Ecommerce is not a local-service category, but it is the one industry in this dataset where Unbounce discloses absolute device-level figures rather than a relative gap, which is why it appears here as a reference point rather than as a claim about local businesses.
6.4% vs 6.2%
Grade Cmobile versus desktop conversion rate for SaaS landing pages — the two devices converting at almost identical rates, unlike most other industries in the dataset.
What it does not say Included specifically because it contradicts the general pattern — a business that assumes 'desktop always wins' industry-wide would be wrong for SaaS. No comparable local-service or home-services device breakdown was identified in the sources reviewed on 8 September 2026.
| Industry | Desktop CVR | Mobile CVR | Mobile share of visits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecommerce | 23.6% | 19.4% | n/a |
| SaaS | 6.2% | 6.4% | 79% |
These are the only two industries in Unbounce's public report where absolute desktop and mobile figures are both stated on the same page. No home-services or local-service row exists in the published data — the all-industry 8% gap above is the closest figure to a local-business proxy, and it is a relative gap, not two absolute numbers. Source: Unbounce, Conversion Benchmark Report
What this means for judging your own mobile conversion rate
The direction of the gap is consistent enough to trust — mobile visitors convert at a lower rate than desktop visitors on a landing page, across most industries measured. The size of the gap is not consistent enough to borrow: ecommerce shows a 4.2-point spread, SaaS shows almost none, and no local-service equivalent has been published by any source reviewed for this page.
So a local business site converting noticeably worse on mobile than desktop is not automatically underperforming a benchmark that does not exist for its industry. It is worth checking whether the mobile experience specifically has a fixable fault — a phone number that is not a tappable tel: link, a form that is difficult to complete one-handed, text small enough to require pinch-zooming — before assuming the gap is simply structural.
Given how much local search happens on a phone in the first place, a wide mobile-versus-desktop gap on a local business site is usually more diagnostic than the same gap would be for a desktop-heavy B2B product. The device mix behind that assumption is set out in this site's local search behaviour statistics.
Paid search and AI-assistant referrals now convert above organic and direct — social lags both by roughly half
This is multi-touch attribution data rather than last-click, which matters because it credits the channels that actually contributed to a conversion rather than only the last one a visitor clicked before converting. The visibility side of the AI-referral channel below is covered separately in this site's AI local search statistics.
5.4% to 2.11%
Grade Bconversion rate ranges from paid search, the highest-converting channel measured, down to paid social, the lowest — organic search sits closer to paid search than to either social channel.
What it does not say A genuinely large, dated, disclosed sample — graded B rather than A because the geographic composition is not stated explicitly and has to be inferred from where the company is based, and because 'conversion' spans forms, calls and live chat pooled together rather than reported separately per channel.
5.8%
Grade Bconversion rate for AI-referral traffic — visits arriving from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude and similar tools — the highest-converting channel in the dataset, ahead of every established organic channel.
What it does not say This is one of the first dated, sampled benchmarks to isolate AI-assistant referral traffic as its own channel rather than folding it into 'other' or 'direct' — worth flagging as new and worth re-checking as the category matures, since a single edition of a still-forming measurement category carries more uncertainty than an established one.
Conversion rate by traffic source, 2026
AI-assistant referral traffic already out-converts every established organic and paid channel except paid search, on a sample too new to call a stable trend yet.
Scale 0–7%. 110M+ sessions, 5M+ conversions, 13 industries, multi-touch attribution. Source: Ruler Analytics, Conversion Rate Benchmarks
Ruler Analytics' own commentary alongside the data is worth repeating rather than smoothing over: social's low conversion rate reflects measurement difficulty as much as channel weakness. A social-sourced visitor frequently returns later through a different, better-attributed channel — direct, or a branded search — and multi-touch attribution can still under-credit social for starting that journey if the platform's own tracking can't stitch the two visits together.
A low conversion rate on social traffic is not proof the channel isn't working; it may be proof the measurement is incomplete. Paid search and organic search, both query-based and higher-intent by construction, converting well above social is the more reliable part of this dataset — a visitor who typed a specific search is closer to a decision than one scrolling a feed.
What this means for where to look first
If a local business runs paid search, organic content and paid social simultaneously and reports one blended conversion rate, that number is quietly averaging a roughly 5% channel with a roughly 2% one. A business generating most of its traffic from social will report a lower blended rate than one generating most of its traffic from search, independent of how good either individual page is.
Reporting conversion rate by channel, not blended, is the fix, and it's a configuration change in most analytics setups rather than a new tool. The local marketing measurement guide covers how to set that up without buying anything.
A Core Web Vitals fix moved conversion rate more than most redesigns do — in Google's own published case data
This site's page speed statistics cover Core Web Vitals pass rates across the web generally. This section covers the narrower, more directly useful question that page doesn't answer: what a speed improvement is actually worth in conversion terms, in a real, disclosed test rather than a rule of thumb.
33.13%
Grade Bincrease in conversion rate from a Core Web Vitals optimisation project, measured in a controlled one-month A/B test with a 50/50 traffic split against the unoptimised original.
What it does not say A genuine controlled experiment, not a correlation — that is rare and valuable. It is also a single company's result, in ecommerce rather than local services, and one case study is evidence of what's possible, not a rate any other business should expect to replicate exactly.
53.37%
Grade Bincrease in revenue per visitor from the same Core Web Vitals optimisation, in the same A/B test.
What it does not say Revenue per visitor moved by more than conversion rate did in the same test, which points to a second effect beyond pure conversion — visitors on the faster version also spent more per order (a 15.20% increase in average order value was reported in the same study), suggesting speed affects browsing behaviour beyond the single decision to convert or not.
61.13% and 55.88%
Grade Cconversion rate increase associated with a good Largest Contentful Paint score and a good First Input Delay score respectively, based on real-user monitoring correlation across the same site's traffic, separately from the controlled A/B test above.
What it does not say This is a correlation, not the A/B test above, and the case study itself does not separate the two methods as clearly as this page does. Correlational field data can be confounded by other factors that differ between fast-loading and slow-loading sessions — it is directional supporting evidence, not a second independent proof of the A/B result.
What this means alongside the Core Web Vitals pass-rate figures
Read next to this site's own page speed statistics — where Google's Chrome UX Report puts the mobile-web Core Web Vitals pass rate at 49.1% as of May 2026 — the Rakuten case makes the missing half of that story concrete: roughly half the mobile web is failing thresholds Google itself has now shown, in a controlled test, are worth over 33% in conversion rate to at least one real business.
The case study is ecommerce rather than local services, and a single company's A/B test is not a benchmark any other business can assume it will match.
What travels reliably from ecommerce to a local business site is the mechanism, not the exact number: a visitor who has to wait for the largest element on the page to render is a visitor deciding whether to stay before they have seen what the business offers. That decision point exists on a home-services landing page exactly as it does on an online shop.
Checking your own Core Web Vitals status costs nothing and takes minutes; PageSpeed Insights and the Chrome UX Report both report it for free. Which of the resulting warnings are worth acting on, and which are noise, is the subject of the technical checks that actually matter.
Completion rate falls with form length and varies by device — but the exact numbers depend on which source you trust
This section traces a widely-quoted secondary paraphrase back to its primary source and finds the two don't agree — which is worth showing rather than hiding, because it's a live example of exactly the failure this page's grading system exists to catch.
54.5% vs 47.5% vs 49.3%
Grade Cview-to-completion rate for desktop, mobile and tablet respectively, across all form types and industries in the sample.
What it does not say The sample scale is genuinely large and disclosed, but Zuko's own pages do not state a date range or geography for the underlying data — enough of a gap to hold this at C despite the credible methodology. A widely-circulated secondary summary of this same dataset states materially different figures (47% desktop, 42% mobile, 41% tablet); the numbers used here are the ones fetched directly from Zuko's own page rather than the paraphrase, per this site's sourcing rule.
47.4%
Grade Cview-to-completion rate specifically for contact forms, against 60.7% for registration forms (the highest of the categories measured) and 42.7% for enquiry forms (the lowest).
What it does not say A secondary source paraphrasing this same Zuko dataset states a contact-form completion rate of 9%, which could not be reconciled with the 47.4% published directly on Zuko's own page. Rather than silently pick one, this record uses the figure fetched from the primary source and flags the conflict — the 9% figure is not used anywhere on this page.
| Form purpose | Completion rate |
|---|---|
| Registration | 60.7% |
| Purchase | 54.4% |
| Onboarding | 51.8% |
| Application | 51.6% |
| Contact | 47.4% |
| Comparison | 46.4% |
| Enquiry | 42.7% |
'Enquiry' and 'Contact' are Zuko's own separate categories and are not identical to each other, which is itself a reminder that 'contact form' is not a single standardised thing across sources — a business comparing its own form against a published benchmark should confirm which category its form actually resembles before treating the gap as meaningful. Source: Zuko Analytics, Form Type Benchmarking
Age, phone number and street-level location fields
Grade Bare the three specific field types HubSpot's own analysis of 40,000+ customer landing pages found associated with lower conversion rates, more than field count alone.
What it does not say Real, large, disclosed sample and a primary source rather than a paraphrase — but the finding is directional (these field types correlate with lower conversion) rather than quantified (no 'age field costs you X points' figure is published). Treat it as guidance on which fields to question first, not as a number to plug into a forecast.
What this means for redesigning a form
Two things are well-supported here and one widely-repeated thing is not. Well-supported: shorter forms complete at a higher rate than longer ones, in the general direction every source reviewed agrees on, and specific field types — age, phone number, precise geographic detail — carry an extra cost beyond their length alone, which is HubSpot's own finding from a real 40,000-page sample.
Not well-supported: any of the precise, field-by-field percentage tables ("one field converts at 18.2%, two at 13.0%…") that circulate across marketing blogs. Two mutually inconsistent versions of that exact table exist in general circulation, both usually attributed to "HubSpot" or "Quicksprout" without a working link to a study that actually contains those numbers — documented in the do-not-cite section below rather than reproduced here as fact.
The practical takeaway survives the removal of that table intact. Ask only for what the first response actually needs, and question every phone-number and location field specifically rather than assuming field count is the only variable.
If a longer form is unavoidable, a multi-step layout that reveals length progressively is worth testing against a single long page rather than assumed to help. The local business website conversion guide works through the form decisions in more detail than a statistics page usefully can.
For a mobile local searcher, the phone is a conversion channel in its own right — not a fallback for a broken form
Every figure above measures a form submission. A phone call from a local search is a different, and for many service categories a larger, conversion type, with its own conversion rate that a form-only view of a website misses entirely.
42%
Grade Bof leads generated from phone calls convert on the call itself, across the industries measured.
What it does not say A genuinely large, dated, disclosed sample from a company whose core business is measuring exactly this. Graded B rather than A because the report's Home Services-specific figures are presented only as an unlabelled chart image on the page reviewed, not as text — the same limitation this site notes elsewhere for chart-only data.
38%
Grade Bof answered calls become a qualified lead in the first place, before the 42% call-conversion figure above is even applied.
What it does not say Read together, these two figures compound the same way cost per lead does on this site's local lead generation statistics page: 38% of answered calls become a lead, and 42% of those leads convert during the call — meaning roughly 16% of all answered calls convert on the spot, before any follow-up call or quote ever happens.
56%
Grade Bof callers speak with an actual person rather than reaching voicemail, an automated system, or going unanswered.
What it does not say This is the ceiling on the two conversion figures above, not a separate concern — a call that never reaches a person cannot become a lead or convert on the call, whatever the business's average call-conversion rate looks like once it is.
Google's own Local Services Ads product, covered in more detail on this site's local lead generation statistics page, already treats an answered call, a returned missed call, and a text as equally valid lead events — Google is pricing calls as a first-class conversion type, not a consolation prize for a visitor who couldn't find the form.
The Invoca figures above quantify what happens once that call connects, which is a step further down the funnel than anything Google's own lead-pricing documentation discloses. The 56% answered-call figure also sets a hard ceiling that is really a speed problem, measured in detail on this site's lead response time statistics.
What this means for a mobile-heavy local business
A website's form conversion rate, on its own, systematically understates total conversion for any local business where a meaningful share of mobile visitors tap to call instead of filling in a form — which describes most trades, medical and legal local searches.
If 56% of callers reach a person and 38% of those become a lead, a phone number that is not a properly tappable tel: link, sitting in a sticky position visible without scrolling, is not a cosmetic omission. It is a conversion path that a large share of mobile visitors are already reaching for, closed off by a formatting choice.
Measuring form conversion rate alone, on a site where calls are also happening, is measuring one lane of a two-lane road. Call tracking, even a basic version, is the only way to see the second lane rather than infer it — the call tracking statistics cover what the measurement itself reliably captures and what it does not.
What the evidence covers
The underlying platform data is not disclosed by geography beyond 'predominantly North American and European accounts' for Unbounce, and is not stated at all for Zuko Analytics. Ruler Analytics is UK-headquartered, which likely weights its sample toward the UK and Europe, and Invoca's call-conversion data is explicitly US-only.
No conversion-rate benchmark specific to local businesses in India or comparable markets was identified in the sources reviewed on 8 September 2026. Mobile-first, WhatsApp-heavy conversion paths common in those markets likely behave differently from the desktop-and-form-dominant pattern most of this dataset reflects.
The numbers that did not survive the trace
These appear in current statistics roundups. Each one fails on provenance, and quoting them transfers the failure to you.
18.2%
Do not citeconversion rate for a one-field form, against 13.0% for two fields, down to 4.2% for nine or more — a precise figure for every specific field count.
Traced to Circulates widely with a vague 'HubSpot' or 'Quicksprout' attribution, but no version found in the sources reviewed on 8 September 2026 links to a study actually containing this exact table.
At least two mutually inconsistent versions of this table are in general circulation — one running 18.2% down to 4.2%, another running roughly 25.5% down to below 10% — both attributed to the same vague sources. Two incompatible 'precise' tables both citing the same uncredited origin is close to definitive evidence that neither traces to a real, checkable study. HubSpot's own current blog content, fetched directly for this page, makes a directional claim (fewer fields generally convert better; certain field types cost more than others) but publishes no field-by-field percentage table matching either circulating version.
53%
Do not citeof mobile site visits are abandoned if a page takes longer than 3 seconds to load.
Traced to DoubleClick (acquired by Google), 'The Need for Mobile Speed', published on Google's own blog on 8 September 2016. The post's own footnote dates the underlying data earlier still: aggregated, anonymised Google Analytics data from 3,700 mobile sites opted into benchmark sharing, global, March 2016.
This one genuinely traces to a real, named study — the problem is the same one documented for other zombies on this site: the date. Most roundups quoting it give a 2017 date, which is already generous; the primary post is September 2016 and the measurement itself is March 2016. A decade-old mobile-network and page-weight study, from before Core Web Vitals existed as a framework (2020) and before 4G, let alone 5G, was the mobile-network norm, is still quoted in 2026 'statistics' roundups as though it describes today's mobile web. It may still be directionally true that slow pages lose mobile visitors — the Rakuten 24 case study above is more recent, controlled evidence for that same direction — but the specific '53% at 3 seconds' figure is not current evidence, and roundups quoting it rarely include 2016 in the sentence.
60%
Do not citeof smartphone users have contacted a business directly from search results, attributed to 'Think with Google, 2025'.
Traced to Traceable ancestor: a 2013 Google-commissioned mobile-search survey (n=3,000 US mobile searchers), reported via Google's own consumer-insights channels and covered by SearchEngineWatch at the time, which found 70% of mobile searchers had used click-to-call.
The figure appears to have drifted over more than a decade of re-citation: the original 2013 study measured 70%, not 60%, and its actual URL on Google's own properties could not be located in the sources reviewed on 8 September 2026 — the 'Think with Google, 2025' attribution now attached to the 60% version does not resolve to a live page. This is a clean example of a statistic ageing past traceability: a real study thirteen years old, re-cited with a changed number and a fabricated-looking recent date, in a search environment that has changed completely since the original measurement. The Invoca call-conversion data above is used on this page instead, precisely because it is dated, sampled and currently traceable.
How this page is made and how to cite it
The overall 6.6% figure and the device, traffic-source, page-speed, form-length and click-to-call figures added in this update were each traced to their own primary source page and fetched directly rather than taken from a secondary summary. The grading scale applied to each record is set out in our research methodology.
One section of this page — form length — exists specifically because that direct-fetch process surfaced a disagreement between a primary source (Zuko Analytics) and a widely-circulated secondary paraphrase of the same dataset. Both figures are disclosed, with the primary-source figure used in the record and the discrepancy stated rather than hidden.
The home-services-specific figure in the opening section could not be independently confirmed against Unbounce's own per-industry page in this review and is graded accordingly.
Last verified: 8 September 2026. Reviewed quarterly, and re-checked in full when Unbounce, Ruler Analytics, Zuko Analytics or Invoca publish their next editions.
Preferred citation Parashar, S. (2026). Local business conversion rate statistics, traced to source. shrutiparashar.com/statistics/local-conversion-rates/
Questions
- What's a good conversion rate for a local business website?
- The cross-industry median for a dedicated landing page is 6.6%, based on Unbounce's Conversion Benchmark Report — a genuine platform dataset covering 41,000+ landing pages, 464 million unique visitors and 57 million conversions over a trailing 12 months. Home-services lead-generation pages specifically run higher, around 8.5% by median, though that industry-specific figure carries a lower confidence grade because the exact sample size isn't separately disclosed. Treat 6.6% as a reasonable floor to compare against, not a target — a well-run home-services page should be aiming above it.
- Is this conversion rate figure representative of an ordinary local business website?
- Only partially. The sample is businesses that built a dedicated landing page on a conversion-optimised platform — a more conversion-conscious population than local businesses generally, many of whom are running a standard multi-page website rather than a purpose-built landing page. Treat this as a strong benchmark for what's achievable with focused effort, not a description of the average local business site today.
- Does mobile or desktop convert better for a local business site?
- Desktop converts roughly 8% better than mobile on average across Unbounce's full dataset, even though mobile now carries around 83% of the visits. That gap varies a great deal by industry, though — ecommerce shows a 4.2-point desktop advantage, while SaaS shows almost none. No local-service-specific device breakdown has been published by any source reviewed for this page, so a local business should treat a wide mobile shortfall as a prompt to check for a specific fixable fault — a phone number that isn't a tappable link, or a form that's awkward on a small screen — rather than assume the gap is simply how things are.
- Which traffic source converts best for a local business site?
- Across Ruler Analytics' 2026 benchmark (110 million+ sessions, 5 million+ conversions, 13 industries), AI-assistant referral traffic — visits from ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini and similar tools — converts highest at 5.8%, narrowly ahead of paid search at 5.4%. Organic search, referral and direct traffic all cluster close together around 4.7–4.9%. Both paid and organic social lag well behind, at roughly 2.1–2.2%, though the report itself notes this partly reflects measurement difficulty on social platforms rather than the channel being twice as ineffective.
- Does page load speed actually affect conversion rate, or is that just assumed?
- There's real controlled evidence for it, not just a widely-assumed correlation. Google's own web.dev case study on Rakuten 24 ran a genuine one-month A/B test — 50% of traffic to a Core Web Vitals-optimised version, 50% to the original — and measured a 33.13% increase in conversion rate and a 53.37% increase in revenue per visitor on the optimised version. That's one company's result in ecommerce, not a guarantee for every local business site, but it's a controlled experiment rather than a correlation, which is rarer and more convincing evidence than most page-speed claims can offer.
- How many fields should a lead-generation form have?
- Every source reviewed agrees fewer fields generally improve completion rate, but the specific field-by-field percentage tables that circulate widely online (claiming, for instance, that a one-field form converts at exactly 18.2%) could not be traced to any real study and are documented as unreliable on this page rather than repeated. What is well-supported: HubSpot's own analysis of 40,000+ customer landing pages found that fields asking for age, phone number, or precise street-level location correlate with lower conversion specifically, beyond the effect of field count alone — worth questioning those fields individually rather than just counting the total.
- What's a realistic form completion rate for a contact form?
- Zuko Analytics' own benchmarking page, fetched directly for this review, states a 47.4% view-to-completion rate for contact forms specifically, against 60.7% for registration forms and 42.7% for the lowest-performing category, enquiry forms — based on a sample of 739 forms and over 93 million form views. Worth flagging: a widely-circulated secondary summary of this same Zuko dataset states a very different 9% figure for contact forms, which could not be reconciled against Zuko's own published numbers. This page uses the figure taken directly from the primary source.
- Should a local business count phone calls as conversions, not just form fills?
- Yes, and measuring form conversion rate alone will understate total conversion for any business where mobile visitors commonly call instead of filling in a form — most home-services, medical and legal local searches. Invoca's 2026 benchmark report (70 million+ calls, 10 industries including Home Services) found 56% of calls reach an actual person, 38% of answered calls become a qualified lead, and 42% of those leads convert on the call itself. A site with no call tracking is only measuring one of two active conversion paths.
- Is the conversion rate on this page the same thing as the conversion rate on the local lead generation statistics page?
- No — they measure different stages of the funnel, and conflating them produces bad conclusions. This page covers website-visit-to-lead: the share of all visitors, from any channel, who contact the business. The local lead generation statistics page covers ad-click-to-lead specifically: the share of people who click a paid search ad and then make contact. A business can have a strong ad-click conversion rate and a weak overall site conversion rate, or the reverse, because the two numbers are answering different questions about different parts of the same journey.
- Why do some conversion rate statistics online disagree with each other so much?
- Frequently because they're not measuring the same thing, and the label 'conversion rate' gets reused for definitions that aren't comparable — form-view-to-completion, visitor-to-lead, click-to-call, and ad-click-to-contact are all sometimes shortened to 'conversion rate' without the qualifier. This page found a direct example while researching it: a secondary summary of a Zuko Analytics form-benchmarking dataset stated a contact-form completion rate roughly five times lower than what Zuko's own page currently publishes for the same category. Checking a figure against its original source, rather than a summary of it, is the only reliable way to catch that kind of drift.
Related reading: the grading method behind these figures , Local business website statistics , Local lead generation statistics , Page speed statistics , the local business website conversion guide .
For the numbers on adjacent topics, see the rest of the archive.
