CASE STUDY · CRO · ANONYMIZED · TRAVEL & HOSPITALITY
Continuous testing on a high-traffic booking site.
Continuous testing
Ongoing
Components under test
Landing pages
Hero modules
Search & filters
Conversion flows
Program cadence
Hypothesis
Build & QA
Launch
Analysis
Ship
Kill
Run longer
Client
Anonymized — Travel & hospitality
Industry
Travel and cruise
Service area
CRO
Engagement type
Retainer
Status
Ongoing
01 — The brief
An enterprise booking platform in the travel and hospitality category, with significant traffic, real conversion stakes, and an existing CRO program that needed senior execution capacity. AB Tasty was the platform. The hypotheses, the variant builds, the post-test analysis — those were the work.
The brief wasn’t strategic. It wasn’t “design us a CRO program.” The team had its own program, its own roadmap, and its own internal stakeholders. What it needed was reliable senior execution — someone who could take a hypothesis from intake to launched variant without back-and-forth, build the variants properly, and analyze the results honestly enough that the team could trust the call to ship or kill.
02 — What we did
01
Component-level test development
Variants built on AB Tasty across landing pages, hero modules, search and filter UI, conversion flows, and seasonal campaign moments. We didn’t just configure tests; we built the components that ran inside them. Custom front-end work where needed, performance considerations baked in, fallbacks tested, QA done before launch rather than after.
02
Hypothesis discipline
Every test deserves a hypothesis. We worked with the team to keep that discipline intact — hypothesis-design conversations before build, expected impact and traffic considerations agreed up front, success criteria defined before the test went live. The kind of program hygiene that prevents the post-test argument about whether something “won.”
03
Post-test analysis
Tests end one of three ways: ship it, kill it, or run it longer. We were explicit about which result we got and why — including telling the team when a test that “won” probably shouldn’t ship because the result was statistically significant but practically meaningless. The honest analysis is the work.
04
Steady program cadence
Continuous testing rather than episodic projects. The program runs at a sustained cadence with predictable throughput, which means hypotheses ship, results come in, and the backlog updates based on what’s been learned — instead of the program stalling between bursts.
03 — How the engagement runs
Ongoing retainer with predictable monthly throughput. The team owns hypothesis sourcing, prioritization, and final ship/kill calls; we own variant development, QA, launch, and analysis. Senior front-end execution backed by a network of specialists for the technical lifting. What you’re billed for is what you get.
04 — What changed
“
Tests ship on schedule. Variants are built properly the first time. The post-test analysis is honest about what worked and what didn’t.
The more durable change: a CRO discipline that treats killing a test as a real outcome. Most testing programs ship variants that won by tiny margins on irrelevant metrics because the team needs a win to justify the program’s existence. This program is comfortable saying “this won by 2% on click-through but didn’t move conversion — kill it,” because the program over time has shipped enough real wins that the discipline pays back.