DKV Seguros — UX & CRO Case Study

We turned “pretty but hesitant” insurance landings into a confident conversion engine—no redesign, just disciplined CRO, sharper messages, and hard‑won usability truth.

From “pretty pages” to a testing machine: we mapped funnel friction, rewired content hierarchy, and shipped A/B‑backed UI that turned hesitant visitors into confident, qualified leads.

Role

UX & Product Design Consultant (Contractor) via Cloud District

Role

UX & Product Design Consultant (Contractor) via Cloud District

Client / Market

DKV Seguros, health insurance, Spain

Timeline

2020–2021

Who might find this case interesting?

Leaders in regulated, high‑consideration B2C (insurance, finance, healthcare) who need measurable funnel gains without breaking brand, legal, or tech constraints.

Product teams trying to prove impact fast turning audits into a CRO pipeline of small bets, clear metrics, and repeatable wins the org can sustain.

Designers and PMs who value evidence over opinion: analytics + usability + content strategy to resolve message–intent mismatches and reduce form friction.

Jump to Project's Media and Screenshots ->

Overview

DKV Seguros needed more (and better) inbound leads from their web funnels. The brand was strong, yet landing pages, shell navigation, and contracting flows weren’t converting as expected. Messaging, hierarchy, and friction in forms diluted intent at the very moments that mattered.

I was brought in to impose clarity: diagnose where confidence was breaking, define testable hypotheses, and deliver a pipeline of incremental improvements that could move the needle without a full redesign.

Strategic Discovery Focus

I started with a mixed‑methods audit: analytics, session recordings, heuristic reviews, and a content/IA scan of key landings and the quote/contracting path. Stakeholder conversations helped surface unspoken constraints (regulatory copy, brand tone) and success metrics.

From the evidence, we framed hypotheses around three themes:

1. Message–intent mismatch on high‑traffic landings (value claims over clarity).
2. Copywriting & navigation ambiguity (users unsure where to compare or start a quote).
3. Form friction & reassurance gaps in contracting (microcopy, trust cues, help states).

Project Constraints

• High‑consideration, regulated product (health insurance) with legal copy requirements.
• Legacy CMS + CRM (HubSpot) and an existing design language to respect.
• Limited dev bandwidth → prioritize changes that fit current stack.
• No “big‑bang” redesign; commit to iterative CRO with evidence.
• Distributed stakeholders across marketing, IT, and legal; remote collaboration.

These constraints shaped a lean, test‑first approach: prototype fast, measure, keep what works.

Approach & Decisions

• Prioritized quick wins: clarified headings, CTAs, and benefit bullets to match search/deeplink intent.
• Re‑architected information: card sorting + navigation heuristics to surface plan comparison and “Get a quote” consistently.
• Reduced form friction: tighter microcopy, progressive disclosure, clearer error states, and reassurance blocks (what’s needed, how long, what happens next).
• Accessibility improvements: contrast, focus states, and semantic structure to improve flow for keyboard and assistive tech users.
• A/B tests & measurement: shipped variations through a controlled CRO backlog; promoted winning variants and deprecated the rest.
• Team alignment: created succinct experiment briefs (hypothesis → metric → variant) to keep marketing, legal, and dev moving in lockstep.

Outcome

• Clearer landings and paths to action: users in testing reached comparison and quote starts with fewer hesitations.
• Evidence‑led decisions: design debates replaced by test results; a repeatable CRO cadence remained with the team.
• Better hand‑offs & governance: documentation and experiment records reduced regressions and made future changes safer.
• Accessibility uplift: key issues addressed as part of the definition of done, raising the baseline for future work.

Exact figures are confidential, but the winning variants delivered clear gains: more visitors clicked through to start a quote, and fewer dropped out of the tested form steps.

Methods & Tools

Methods: CRO design, accessibility reviews, user observation, A/B testing, card sorting, rapid prototyping, expert reviews, field studies, analytics audits. Tools: Figma, Google Optimize, Google Analytics, Hotjar, HubSpot CRM/CMS, Excel, flowcharting tools, gSuite, Trello, Slack.

Deliverables

• CRO strategy and prioritized experiment backlog.
• UX documentation (flows, navigation, content hierarchy).
• Improved landing templates and contracting microcopy.
• Accessibility enhancements and QA checklists.
• Benchmarking, findings reports, and concise stakeholder readouts.

Learnings & Next Steps

What proved out

Message–intent alignment beats polish. Plain headlines and direct CTAs outperformed branded slogans.

Friction hides in microcopy and states. Inline help, clearer errors, and progressive disclosure lifted completion without new features.

Accessibility wins convert. Better contrast and focus states correlated with lower drop‑off on long forms.

What I’d refine next

Scale the CRO cadence: For each test, define the hypothesis, the success metric, the owner, and the decision rule, and aim for two tests per sprint.

Deepen segmentation: tailor landings by entry intent (SEO, paid, email) and visitor state (new vs. returning).

Instrument end‑to‑end: Track the entire journey from quote start to submission to policy issuance to close the loop.

Explore conversational quoting for mobile and low‑attention contexts.