When conversion drops, marketing is usually blamed first.
The copy is not persuasive enough.
The CTA is not visible.
The funnel needs optimization.
As an engineer, I learned that this framing is often wrong.
Conversion is not primarily a marketing metric.
It is a system-level property.
Conversion does not happen at the button
Marketing brings users to the system.
The system decides whether they stay.
A user does not leave because the CTA color was wrong.
A user leaves because the system introduced doubt.
At every step, the user silently asks:
- Do I understand what is happening?
- Do I trust this?
- Is this safe?
- What happens if I make a mistake?
If the system fails to answer any of these questions, conversion drops.
Conversion is a sequence of micro-decisions
Conversion is not a funnel.
It is not a single action.
It is a chain of micro-decisions:
- I click the link.
- I see the screen.
- I understand the request.
- I accept the requirement.
- I complete the step.
- I move forward.
Every step is a chance to exit.
From a system perspective, conversion is the probability that a user will continue progressing while uncertainty accumulates.
An engineer’s model of drop-off
A simplified model looks like this:
Drop-off ≈ Steps × Uncertainty
This is not a mathematical formula, but a conceptual model for reasoning about system friction.
Where:
- Steps are required user actions
- Uncertainty is fear, confusion, delay, or lack of control
You can reduce drop-off in two ways:
- Reduce the number of steps
- Reduce uncertainty at each step
Most systems do neither.
Where conversion actually breaks
Rarely at the call-to-action.
Most drop-offs happen at:
- Login and signup
- Email or phone verification
- Account recovery
- Support interaction
These are not marketing problems.
They are system design problems.
At these points, the user no longer feels in control:
- credentials are rejected
- codes do not arrive
- recovery flows feel risky
- support becomes a black box
Trust collapses quickly.
Why persuasion does not fix broken flows
When a system:
- requires unnecessary data
- explains poorly
- exposes internal complexity
- forces irreversible actions
No amount of copywriting will save it.
Marketing can amplify a working system.
It cannot repair architectural friction.
If a flow is broken, persuasion only hides the problem temporarily.
Conversion as a consequence of architecture
Systems with higher conversion usually share the same properties:
- fewer required steps
- predictable outcomes
- reversible actions
- minimal identity requirements
- invisible security
Security is present, but not felt.
The user experiences confidence instead of friction.
Conversion improves without optimization because the system removes reasons to leave.
A thought experiment
What happens if:
- accounts are removed where identity is not essential?
- permanent profiles are replaced with temporary access?
- recovery and support are removed from the critical path?
In some use cases, this dramatically reduces uncertainty.
I am currently exploring similar models in a small experimental project — not as a growth hack, but as an architectural decision. The goal is not higher conversion itself, but fewer system-level failure points.
Conversion is not growth
Conversion is not persuasion.
It is not funnel optimization.
It is not psychology.
Conversion is risk management at the system level.
Every extra step is a tax on trust.
Every unclear requirement is a reason to exit.
Final thought
If conversion is low, do not ask:
“How do we convince users?”
Ask instead:
“What did our system make them doubt?”
Fix the system.
Conversion becomes a side effect.
Open questions worth exploring
- Can conversion be predicted before marketing starts?
- Which security steps truly add protection, and which only add noise?
- Where is identity required, and where is it historical inertia?
- Can trust be measured as a system metric?
Top comments (1)
One thing I am curious about and would love to hear from other engineers:
In your experience, which system step caused the biggest unexpected conversion drop?
Not the CTA or onboarding copy - but a technical or architectural decision that looked reasonable at the time, yet later turned out to be costly.