Bonus Ep: Using friction to drive conversions a surprising experiment that increased leads by 9%

The Conversion Podcast | Bonus Episode 1 | Adding friction

Can Friction Improve Conversions? A Counterintuitive Test with James Flory

Is friction always bad for conversions?

In this bonus afternoon episode of the Conversion Podcast, Matt is joined by senior experimentation strategist James Flory to explore one of his top five favorite tests, one that defies a core assumption in UX and optimization: that fewer steps always lead to better results.

In a test for a content-based lead generation site, James and his team added a deliberate step between the end of an article and the email signup form. Instead of showing the form right away, users were first asked a simple yes/no question: “Does this opportunity interest you?”

The goal? To activate two behavioral psychology principles:

Foot-in-the-door: Starting with a smaller ask before the main conversion
Commitment bias: Encouraging follow-through once someone has expressed interest

The result:
→ 9% increase in lead submissions
→ 4% increase in downstream subscriptions

Even more surprising? Many users who initially said “no” still ended up converting, highlighting how intentional, well-designed friction can actually enhance motivation and drive results.

James and Matt discuss how to:

Use friction as a strategic tool, not just a UX enemy
Balance user psychology with funnel metrics
Track meaningful post-click behavior across conversion paths
Shift your team’s mindset from “remove friction” to “design for intent.”

Episode Summary

Lead generation test where adding a yes/no step before signup improved conversions
Explains how intentional friction can leverage commitment bias and foot-in-the-door effects
Test drove a 9% increase in leads and 4% increase in downstream subscriptions
Surprising insight: even users who said “no” still often converted
Highlights the importance of tracking behavioral data beyond the first click

Read transcript

Episode Transcript

Can Friction Improve Conversions?

Host: Matt | Guest: James Flory
Duration: ~5 minutes
Topic: Using intentional friction to boost conversions through commitment bias and foot-in-the-door principles

[00:00:00] Matt
Welcome back, James.
I love the outfit today.

We’ve got you here for another bonus episode of the Conversion Podcast another interesting test example.
This one’s anonymized, but I think it highlights a really useful principle that teams can learn from and apply.
I’ll let you take it from here.

[00:00:21] James
Thanks, Matt.

Today I’m talking about one of my all-time top five experiments—something I think is especially interesting because it challenges a pretty standard belief in UX:
That friction is always bad.

Most of the time, we’re trying to reduce friction. Shorten user journeys. Fewer clicks. Lower time to conversion.
But in this case, we tested the opposite.

[00:00:52] James
The client was a content-led lead generation site.
At the bottom of each article, there’s a call to action asking users to enter their email and sign up.

In the control, it’s straightforward: you get to the bottom of the article, there’s an email field and a button.
In the variation, we added an extra step before showing the form.

[00:01:23] James
Instead of asking for an email immediately, we first asked a yes/no question:
“Does this opportunity interest you?”

This drew on two behavioral principles:

Foot-in-the-door: Start with a small ask before a bigger one
Commitment bias: Once someone says “yes,” they’re more likely to follow through

Depending on their response, they’d see different copy—but in both cases, they still had the opportunity to enter their email.

[00:02:17] James
If they said yes, we’d say:
“Great—act fast. Enter your email to continue.”

If they said no, we’d respond with:
“Sorry to see you go. If you change your mind…”
…and still show the email form.

So the total number of steps actually increased—but the intentional friction, paired with the right psychology, worked.

[00:02:55] James
The results?
📈 +9% in email submissions (leads)
📈 +4% in downstream subscriptions

That extra step helped filter intent, reinforce commitment, and even motivated those who said no to convert anyway.

[00:03:41] James
The key is: the friction was intentional.
It wasn’t just an extra click for no reason. It was part of a strategy that respected the user’s mindset and behavior.

Understanding user psychology—when they’re open to engaging, when they’re reflecting on value—is critical.

This was easily one of the most interesting tests I’ve ever run, and it continues to influence how I think about “best practices.”

[00:03:53] Matt
Such a fascinating test.
Quick question: were you able to see whether people who clicked “no” also converted?

[00:04:15] James
Yes—and that’s a great example of why setting up your tracking plan early matters.
We tracked what happened after someone clicked “yes” or “no,” all the way downstream.

Surprisingly, a significant number of people who clicked “no” still converted.
They entered their email and continued through the funnel—even subscribing.

So the strategy worked across both branches of the experience.

[00:04:54] Matt
Very cool. What a fascinating test.
Thanks again, James—more to come soon.

[00:05:02] James
Thanks for having me, Matt.