01 — Context
GANA Pay is the payroll, benefits and workplace-risk (PEO) line of GANA Business Solutions, for education and healthcare SMEs in the United States.
The site had to explain four regulated services (payroll, HR benefits, risk and safety, and workers’ compensation) without sounding technical or fragmented, and turn visits into qualified enquiries on desktop and mobile. I designed the UX/UI and built the site in WordPress and Elementor, including the solution templates and forms.
02 — My role
I worked on the project through Aquinas Network SAS. I defined the structure of the home page and the solution pages, designed the menu, the service blocks and the contact form, and built them. I set up GA4 and reviewed heatmaps in Clarity. The client supplied the copy and photography.
03 — Diagnosis
Regulated services the buyer can’t name
It was a new site, with no previous version to fix: the risk lay in the brief itself, a PEO offer that could read as technical or scattered. My read of the cause: the owner of a small school or clinic arrives with an operational problem (paying on time, staying compliant, insuring the team), not with the word "PEO". If the site opened with the category instead of the problem, visitors would have to translate it before knowing whether it fits.
It hurts the buyer, who is probably comparing several options and leaves if they can’t quickly tell what each one covers. And it hurts GANA Pay, which needs the company size and the enquirer’s role to prepare a proposal.
04 — Decisions
A. A single hero action, with the services in the sentence
- Problem
- A hero with several buttons splits the attention of someone who doesn’t yet know what a PEO is.
- Decision
- The paragraph names payroll, HR and risk for education and healthcare SMEs, and the hero carries a single button, "Schedule a Free Consultation". "Contact Us" is always in the header.
- Why this one
- I weighed a second hero button to the solutions; I chose a single one so as not to split attention on the first screen. The cost: anyone who wants to explore before talking has to scroll or use the menu.
- What I expected
- Visitors understanding the offer in one sentence and having one thing to do on the first screen.
B. Services named by what they solve
- Problem
- "PEO" is the business category, but not the word buyers search for.
- Decision
- A "Solutions" submenu with four descriptive items: Payroll Solutions, HR Benefits & Administration, Risk Management & Safety Programs and Workers’ Compensation Insurance.
- Why this one
- I weighed short brand labels; I chose long, explicit names because buyers look for their problem, not the category. The cost: a wider submenu and two-line items on mobile.
- What I expected
- Every visitor recognising their problem in the menu without knowing industry jargon.
C. Four cards with one benefit sentence each
- Problem
- Explaining regulated services in detail on the home page makes it technical and long.
- Decision
- A block of four equally weighted cards, with icon, title, one benefit sentence and a "Learn More" link to the solution page.
- Why this one
- I weighed accordions with each service’s detail on the home page; I chose one-sentence cards because the block reads at a glance and the detail lives on the solution page. The cost: less depth on the home page.
- What I expected
- Visitors picking their solution in the first scroll and moving on to the page that explains it.
D. Solution pages that don’t dead-end
- Problem
- Anyone who lands on the wrong solution, or finishes reading one, has nowhere to go.
- Decision
- Each solution page opens with a switcher across all four and closes with "Other Gana Pay Solutions": the other three as cards and a "See All Solutions" button.
- Why this one
- I weighed relying on the menu alone; I chose to repeat navigation at top and bottom because I assumed that someone who finishes reading won’t scroll back up to the menu to find another solution. The cost: visible redundancy on every page.
- What I expected
- Visitors continuing through solutions instead of going back or leaving.
E. A form that qualifies the enquiry
- Problem
- To quote a PEO, the team needs to know the company size and who’s writing.
- Decision
- The form asks for role and headcount as selectors, plus preferred time and channel, and includes the SMS consent the channel requires.
- Why this one
- I weighed a short form followed by a qualification call; I chose to qualify in the form itself so enquiries arrive ready to quote. The cost: more friction at submission.
- What I expected
- Fewer discovery calls, and replies on the channel and at the time the client chose.
05 — System
The result was a home page with a single hero action (Fig. 0), a menu grouping the four solutions (Fig. 1), a solution card block (Fig. 2), a solution page template with a switcher and a close linking to the other three (Fig. 3 and 4) and a qualifying contact form (Fig. 5). Both sites share a system: GANA Pay was built on the GANA Business template, down to its routes.
The scope ended at delivery and instrumentation, not impact reporting, so this case reports no figures.
06 — What I’d test now
The form asks for everything on one screen (Fig. 5). I’d test splitting it into two steps: first the minimum needed to call, then what qualifies.
- Hypothesis
- If step 1 asks only for name, email, phone and headcount, and step 2 for the rest, step 1 submissions rise without lowering the share of enquiries with company and role filled in.
- Primary metric
- Step 1 submissions per contact page visit, in GA4.
- Guardrail
- Share of enquiries completing step 2, and share the team considers qualified.
- Control
- The current single-screen form. 50/50 split until the sample size calculated from the baseline; with low B2B traffic, probably several weeks.