How we increased Gatwick Airport Parking’s mobile bookings by 21%

Enjoy this case study
in one of three ways...

The brief

Optimise for mobile

As their mobile traffic continues to grow, Gatwick Airport Parking wanted to ensure their booking engine was performing at its best on smaller devices.

Increase the number of conversions

By analysing the current user journey, we aimed to locate bottlenecks were occurring. We then focused our efforts on making improvements that would have a big impact in a short space of time.

From the client

“Consultative, proactive and creative - RocketMill is a customer and performance focused partner. They're a very natural extension to our business.”
Ellis Cain-Jones
Senior E-Commerce Manager

The approach

Gatwick Airport approached us wanting to improve conversions. In particular, they asked: “how do we increase bookings on mobile?”

With mobile being an ever-growing area of online traffic, Gatwick Airport appreciated that work was required to make more of this audience. Having such a broad question, however, meant we needed to understand how users were behaving to be able to identify where the difficulties lay. By having this research in place, we would be able to iron out those issues and encourage more users through the booking funnel.

For a video version of this case study, you can watch Bertram Greenhough, our CRO Campaign Manager, discuss how our team worked iteratively to solve this unique challenge below.

Finding the opportunity

To assess where the greatest impact within the mobile experience could be, we started by looking at the existing user journey.

The original user journey and drop off rates.

The original user journey and drop off rates.

With six steps between landing on the site and booking confirmation, we paired each stage with the percentage of users who dropped off. We found the biggest drop off was on the ‘Parking options’ page – with 67% of users leaving the booking funnel. With such a high drop off rate, it was likely we could have the biggest impact over the shortest period of time on this stage in particular.

Exploring user behaviour

Using click maps, scroll maps, user journey recordings and algorithmic eye tracking, we were able to see exactly how users were acting on this page and what they were seeing.

User heatmap .

User heatmap .

From click maps we saw a lot of people interacting with the date picker. We recognised this as unusual behaviour as users had just entered their date on the previous step; it was unlikely their travel dates had changed in the time between pages, so why were they changing their dates?

On looking at the page, we noticed the only call to action visible on page load was the ‘Apply’ button – users were being asked to change their dates before they saw a product name or price; this needing adjusting to help retain user focus.

Generating a hypothesis

We hypothesised that by reducing the date picker we’d give focus back to the products, bringing the ‘Select’ button into view. This would therefore raise the click-through rate on the ‘Select’ buttons and ultimately increase bookings.

Creating variations and testing

To test our hypothesis, we produced a variation so we could compare the original against what we believed would perform better.

Variation A and B from the collapsed date picker experiment.

Variation A and B from the collapsed date picker experiment.

Our variation reduced the size of the date picker, allowing the content of the first product to come into the window. We then ran this as an A/B split test, sending half the traffic to the original design and half to our optimised variation.

This variation had a substantial 6.9% increase in bookings – a fantastic outcome! But it left us wondering if more could be done. If we were even more economical with space, could we raise bookings further?

Iterating for extra uplift

Building on our first test, we hypothesised that changing the product panel layout so they took up less space would allow users to compare products. If we could get the key information for more than one product on the screen at a time, we believed even more users would continue through the booking funnel.

We built a new variation, keeping the date picker collapsed but adjusting the product panels underneath.

Variation B and C, building upon the date picker experiment to optimise use of space.

Variation B and C, building upon the date picker experiment to optimise use of space.

We managed to rearrange the content so the parking options’ USPs, price and ‘Select’ button were now visible on page load – with the second parking option name, price and button visible on most devices as well, indicating more content on the page.

Further testing

To test this variation, we were confident our initial findings were statistically significant, and so decided to only compare the newest variations. Rather than comparing our new design against variation A from the previous test, we compared it to variation B instead.

This experiment iteration saw bookings increase by 11.1%! This meant that if we compared the conversion rate of our latest variation to the original design, we had a strong combined bookings uplift of 21% on mobile.

The results

21% increase in conversions

Monitored with A/B testing, Gatwick Airport have seen a fantastic and consistent uplift in parking bookings.

Download PDF version

Start your RocketMill campaign Enquire

More Case Studies

Video case study: How we increased Bauer Media’s subscriptions via Paid Media by 42%

Video case study: How we revolutionised the Bauer Media customer journey

Video case study: How we helped IDG achieve record Black Friday traffic