The free plan wasn't actually "no registration required" — fixing a landing page claim that contradicted itself
Background An external marketing review flagged what looked like a contradiction in our landing page's FAQ. Checking it against the actual code confirmed the claim was accurate. Two statements coexisted on the same page: Quick Start, step 2: "Register with your email to start for free" The FAQ answer: "The Free plan requires no registration and allows up to 1 site, 3 runs per month — completely…
The landing page for the Free plan claimed "no registration required," but a closer examination of the actual code revealed that an email address was indeed necessary for registration. Two conflicting statements existed on the same page: "Quick Start, step 2: Register with your email to start for free" and the FAQ answer stating that the Free plan requires no registration and allows up to 1 site with 3 runs per month.
Upon checking the implementation, it became clear that the Free plan did require an email address to be registered and verified before use. The contradiction stemmed from combining two separate aspects of the plan—the cost (no credit card or time limit) and the procedural (registering an email address). The phrase "no registration required" failed to acknowledge the registration requirement.
The appropriate solution was to update the FAQ to accurately reflect the true nature of the Free plan. The revised statement was: "The Free plan only asks for your email address and allows up to 1 site, 3 runs per month — completely free." This change preserved the cost-related aspects of the plan while accurately reflecting the procedural requirement.
The correction was applied across all versions of the landing page, including the English and Japanese versions and duplicate FAQ entries on multiple pages. The change was isolated to the copy, leaving the product naming (WP Maintenance Manager vs. WP Maintenance Pro) untouched. This approach maintained consistency without overcorrecting, as the product-naming discrepancy would require a separate decision-making process.
The root cause of this inconsistency was likely a simplification of the original claim, resulting in the loss of the registration requirement. To prevent such errors in the future, it is crucial to regularly verify landing page claims against the actual implementation, especially when changes are made to the underlying features. This practice ensures that the copy remains accurate and aligns with the product's functionality.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.