Paste your newsletter signup page or About page. We grade it against newsletter-specific patterns — promise, frequency, archive proof, signup friction — and return three fixes referencing your hero, your archive block, your signup form.
Results in 60 seconds.
Newsletter signup pages have to do something every other landing page envies and fears: get the visitor to give up inbox real estate they actively guard. Generic CRO advice — "add a popup, simplify the form" — solves the wrong problem. The visitor's question isn't "is the form easy?" It's "will the next 26 emails from this person be worth reading?" If your hero says "join my newsletter for weekly insights", you've answered nothing. Every newsletter says that. The page has to give the visitor a reason to believe you specifically — your point of view, your frequency, your archive — will be worth their attention next Tuesday.
Landing Doctor reads your newsletter page the way an inbox-protective reader does. We check whether your H1 promises a specific value the reader can verify (a topic, a take, a frequency), whether your archive shows recent issues (so the reader can sample before subscribing), whether your testimonial block reads like reader quotes or generic praise, and whether your signup form asks for too much before delivering anything. The fixes reference your actual page elements — your H1, your archive grid, your signup line.
"Weekly insights for marketers" sounds like every other newsletter. "A 5-minute weekly read on B2B copy that converts, by someone who ships it" reads as a specific promise. We flag whether your H1 names a topic, a frequency, and a point of view — or sits in generic newsletter boilerplate.
Inbox-protective readers want to know what they're signing up for. If your past issues aren't visible — or if they're behind a paywall before subscribe — readers leave. We flag whether you show 3-5 recent issue titles or links so the reader can taste before they commit.
Every additional field is a subscriber lost. Unless personalization actively improves your open rate, the first-name field is friction. We flag whether your form's required fields match the value being delivered.
"Join 12,000 readers" sounds nice but doesn't move a skeptical reader. "Read by founders at [recognizable brands]" or "5-star quoted by [reader]" does. We grade whether your proof shows the right kind of reader, not just the count.
Free preview returns three priority fixes. The $49 audit unlocks the full 12-dimension breakdown — H1 specificity, frequency clarity, archive visibility, signup-form friction, social proof structure, mobile flow, segment match, About-page authority — plus a hero rewrite (current vs. proposed copy with rationale), three subscribe-CTA variants ranked by expected impact, and the top five fixes with copy-paste replacements. PDF included. Built for newsletters on Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, ConvertKit (Kit), Mailchimp, custom Next.js sites, and dedicated landing pages.
Real founders, real fixes
“The homepage became much easier to read after applying the suggestions. Cleaner hero, fewer competing CTAs, sharper value prop.”
“Simple suggestions, but they made the website cleaner and easier to navigate. Sometimes the simplest changes are the ones you can't see yourself.”
Free preview now — $49 audit unlocks the full audit and PDF. One charge, no subscription. Apply the fixes before your next issue lands.
Results in 60 seconds.
Yes — Landing Doctor reads the rendered HTML, not the platform. Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, ConvertKit (Kit), Mailchimp, custom Next.js or Astro pages all work the same way. The audit grades the public-facing signup page. If you have a custom landing page (yourdomain.com instead of yourdomain.substack.com), audit that one — the conversion patterns differ slightly between platform-default pages and custom-domain pages, and the audit calibrates accordingly.
The audit grades whichever page you submit. Platform-default pages (yourdomain.substack.com) often underperform custom landing pages because they share a layout with thousands of other newsletters and can't differentiate. A custom landing page with your H1, your archive, and your point of view typically converts 2-3x better — but only if it's well-built. The audit will tell you whether your current page (default or custom) is leaving subscribers on the table.
Yes — and pre-launch pages have a specific pattern the audit recognizes. Without an archive, your page has to lean harder on point-of-view signals, founding-reader framing ("first 100 subscribers"), and your bio authority. The audit will tell you which sections are weak because you don't yet have past issues, and recommend swaps — your origin story, a sample issue, your topic taxonomy — that hold the page together until issues exist.
Both pages drive subscribers but through different paths. Signup pages convert direct traffic with a sharp H1, archive proof, and a friction-light form. About pages convert curious readers via authority, point of view, and a softer subscribe ask at the end. The audit detects which page you submitted and grades against the right pattern. Many newsletters audit both and find the About page is leaking more subscribers than they realized.