Film posters taught me one thing:
the eye decides before the brain does.
Typography, contrast, where you place the subject, these aren't aesthetic preferences, they're conversion decisions. I brought that same thinking to landing pages and paid ads. The work below shows the iteration, not just the final output.
3+
yrs designing
for film & brands
Landing page iteration
Volopay Corporate Cards, what changed between V1 and V2.
The V1 was a standard feature-first layout, hero with a CTA, then a feature grid. It looked like every other fintech landing page. V2 was a deliberate rewrite: lead with the buyer's problem, make the product feel premium, anchor the page in dark.
volopay.com/corporate-cards
Version 1
Original
volopay.com/corporate-cards
Version 2
Redesign
→
Headline rewrite
"The best corporate cards for all your business expenses" → problem-first framing. Generic superlatives don't convert CFOs, specific pain does.
→
Dark treatment
White backgrounds read as generic SaaS. The dark theme was a deliberate signal: this is a finance product for serious teams, not another startup tool.
→
Product hero prominence
V1 buried the product screenshot. V2 leads with it, buyers need to see the interface before they read the copy.
→
Trust logos moved up
Social proof belongs above the fold. Moved logos (MX Player, Invideo, Polygon, Antler) closer to the headline to reduce early skepticism.
B2B landing page
AI SEO landing page, built to convert a skeptical B2B buyer.
The buyer here is a CMO or VP Marketing who has been burned by SEO agencies before. The page is designed around that specific psychology: lead with the problem they recognize, preempt the objection they're already forming, back everything with specifics.
01
Above-fold headline targets the conversation in the buyer's head, "Your Buyers Are Asking [Competitors] Who to Hire." Immediately establishes the cost of inaction without screaming at them.
02
Dark theme creates authority contrast, most SEO agency sites are white and loud. Dark + minimal signals confidence. The page doesn't need to shout.
03
Comparison table directly names the claim, "Every Agency Claims 'AI SEO.' Here's What Actually Differs." Skeptical buyers don't want to guess where you're different. Show them the diff.
04
FAQ section answers the unspoken objections, "Every Question Your Team Has, Answered." Removes the sales call barrier for informed buyers who just want clarity before they reach out.
ABM landing pages
100+ landing pages, one built for each target account.
An outbound ABM campaign where nobody gets a generic page. Every company on the target list has its own landing page, built around their business and their problem, with the outreach linking straight to it. 100+ accounts, 100+ pages — one layout that stays personal at that volume.
One of them below, built for an identity security company. Name blurred, everything else as sent.
personalized page · 1 of 100+
01
The company's own name is the hook, the headline names their specific problem, not a service. A prospect can tell in one second this page was made for them and not sent to a list.
02
Proof before pitch, a score and the findings sit above the fold. The work is already done and visible, so the call is the next step rather than the ask.
03
One layout, 100+ variants, fixed structure and type scale, swappable blocks underneath. That is what makes personalization at this volume survivable.
04
Dark, dense and typographic, the page has to read as analysis, not marketing. Mono type on the data, generous space between findings, one CTA repeated at the decision points.
Paid ad creative testing
InterviewBuddy, 4 creative variants, one brief.
Brief: drive signups for mock interview sessions. We ran 4 creative directions simultaneously to test which emotional angle resonated — fear of failure, social proof, outcome aspiration, or urgency. Each variant had the same offer and copy. The only variable was the emotional hook.
Hypothesis A
Fear + Stakes. Opens with the worst-case scenario. Tests whether naming the fear directly drives higher urgency than aspirational messaging.
Hypothesis B
Social proof. Peer validation as the hook. Tests whether "others like you succeeded" outperforms fear-based framing for this audience.
Hypothesis C
Outcome-led. Leads with the result, not the product. Tests whether showing the destination converts better than highlighting the risk.
Hypothesis D
Urgency. Time-pressure framing. Tests whether a deadline-driven message lifts CTR over benefit or proof-based hooks.
↗
What the test was really about
The copy and offer were identical across all 4. The only variable was the emotional framing — fear, proof, outcome, urgency. That isolation is what makes creative testing useful. When one variant outperforms, you know it was the angle, not the headline.
↗
What I'd change now
Fear and urgency tend to spike CTR but pull weaker-intent signups. I'd pair the outcome and social proof variants with a longer follow-up sequence — those audiences need more conviction before they convert. The test told us what hooks attention. The next question is what converts.
Creative / Film posters
On the sidelines: 300+ posters. Zero budget. 40M impressions.
Indian cinema. Original poster work built on the side — no team, no paid reach. Just typography, composition, and knowing what makes someone stop scrolling.
