WEBSITE / B2B
How we would build a website for two types of B2B buyers
A B2B scenario with two buying journeys, adaptive forms, and a numerical comparison of inquiries, qualification, and orders.
PLEASE NOTEConceptual scenario. The company, volumes, and numerical results below are fictional. This example describes a working method, not a completed client project.
Context and objective
A supplier receives requests for small orders and recurring procurement. Every request goes through a general form, and the team subsequently asks the same clarifying questions. The proposed objective is to increase orders the company can serve well and reduce qualification work.
Hypotheses and investigation
We would check whether the problem comes from missing information, unsuitable traffic, or uncompetitive terms. We would examine a sample of won, lost, and ineligible inquiries, speak with the sales team, and observe prospective customers trying to find a product.
We would request data on order value and frequency, margin, inventory, service areas, and time to quote. Before measurement, we would define a qualified inquiry: an available or obtainable product, an acceptable quantity, an eligible location, and a need the team can serve. A salesperson’s impression alone would not be enough.
Strategic choice
If recurring procurement has potential and operations can support it, we would give it a dedicated journey. Occasional buyers would retain quick access to essential information. We would invest first in clarity and inquiry handling; a complex customer account could wait until its necessity was demonstrated.
Page demonstration
A generic version might open with “Your partner for complete solutions” and a single “Contact” button. In the proposed prototype, the introduction would explain the products and service areas, then offer two entry points: “I need to place an order” and “I need recurring supply.”
The first path would cover compatibility, minimum quantities, and delivery terms. The second would explain procurement, how shortages are handled, and what is needed for a quote. No stock or delivery promise would be published without operational confirmation.
The form would adapt: product and quantity for an order; categories, frequency, and locations for recurring supply. We would ask only for information that changes the commercial response. The confirmation would explain the next step and a response time the company can actually meet.
What does each buyer find on the page?
Compare the generic version with the proposed prototype for the same fictional supplier. Neither version is declared the winner. Check whether each buyer recognizes their path and knows what comes next.
Fictional data and situations.A local demonstration, without client results. Your choices do not send data, inquiries, or bookings.
First section
“Your partner for complete solutions” and a single “Contact” button.
The products and service areas, then two entry points: “I need to place an order” and “I need recurring supply.”
What needs checking
Does each buyer recognize their situation before the first click?
Read all variations
First section
Generic version: “Your partner for complete solutions” and a single “Contact” button.
Proposed prototype: The products and service areas, then two entry points: “I need to place an order” and “I need recurring supply.”
Check: Does each buyer recognize their situation before the first click?
One-off order
Generic version: The same general form for every request.
Proposed prototype: Compatibility, minimum quantities, and delivery terms, then a form for product and quantity.
Check: Can an occasional buyer quickly learn whether the product fits and when it can arrive?
Recurring supply
Generic version: The same general form, with the team asking the same follow-up questions later.
Proposed prototype: The procurement process, how shortages are handled, and what is needed for a quote; a form for categories, frequency, and locations.
Check: Do we ask only for information that changes the commercial response? No stock or delivery promise is published without operational confirmation.
What we would build
Deliverables would include a map of buying questions, two journey prototypes, working pages and forms, inquiry routing rules, and reporting that connects the source to the sales outcome. AI could support variations and implementation, with validation against the actual offer and systems.
Measurement and comparison
Fictional numerical example with the same 2,000 eligible sessions per version: A produces 100 inquiries, 30 qualified inquiries, and 6 orders. B produces 80 inquiries, 40 qualified inquiries, and 10 orders. Form conversion falls from 5% to 4%, while orders per session rise from 0.3% to 0.5%. Inquiry count alone would lead to the wrong interpretation.
| Metric | Version A | Version B |
|---|---|---|
| Eligible sessions | 2,000 | 2,000 |
| Inquiries | 100 | 80 |
| Qualified inquiries | 30 | 40 |
| Orders | 6 | 10 |
| Inquiries per session | 5% | 4% |
| Qualified share of inquiries | 30% | 50% |
| Orders per session | 0.3% | 0.5% |
These figures illustrate the calculation; they do not demonstrate statistical superiority. In a real test, we would allocate comparable traffic, keep definitions consistent, and allow inquiries to reach a sales outcome. We would also track order margin, sales effort, and recurring value when sufficient data becomes available.
What would change our recommendation
If losses come from inventory or pricing, we would prioritize the offer. If segmentation confuses visitors, we would return to one journey with progressive questions. If the company cannot support recurring contracts, we would not build messaging that promises them.