11 Mistakes That Prevent Conversion from BOFU Blog Posts

Three weeks ago, Convertkit, a popular newsletter platform, published a blog post that stirred controversy on Twitter (X). The author made an inaccurate claim about Beehiiv, one of ConvertKit’s competitors, prompting Beehiiv’s founder to challenge ConvertKit’s assertion publicly.

The blog post is the type of content you create to convert the audience at the bottom of the funnel (BOFU) into customers. Due to their high conversion potential, BOFU blog posts require a surgical description of your product’s value propositions, sales copywriting techniques, and an honest and transparent outlook for your competitors. 

After reading the article, I tweeted briefly, stating why I thought it was a poor attempt at BOFU writing. Subsequently, a few of my followers inquired about my opinion on the blog post, and I pledged to write a review, which is what you’re about to read. 

PS: This review aims to showcase what I consider the best practices for writing BOFU content that converts. Not ridicule another creator’s work. I am open to receiving constructive feedback.

So, here are 11 conversion-killing mistakes you want to avoid in your next BOFU content. 

1. Setting unclear expectations for the reader 

What’s in it for me?

You won’t hear them saying it, but every potential reader asks this question before they decide to read your content. 

Starting with the headline, readers form a mental image of what your blog post will cover and quickly determine if it aligns with their interests. 

If they arrive at your website only to discover that the content deviates from their expectations, they might exit just as swiftly as they arrived, resulting in a loss of traffic and potential customers.

For instance, on Twitter, the ConvertKit article is titled “13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Free Plans [+ reliable delivery].  

As a reader, you’d anticipate gaining the confidence to select the ideal newsletter platform for your business based on its free plan perks after reading this piece. 


However, upon clicking through, you’ll meet a different headline. 

An article that pledges to review newsletter platforms based on their free plans is entirely distinct from one that assesses these platforms according to their delivery rates. Promising one thing (A) and delivering something else (B) sets the stage for a high bounce rate and zero conversion.

Luckily, the blog post had a similar title on the search engine results page (SERP) as the article on the actual page. That way visitors arriving from search results would not encounter the same confusion as those coming from social media channels.

However, I’ve chosen to highlight this issue because, as we will soon discover, the remaining sections of the blog post did not address either of the promised topics: free plans or delivery rates. And both search and social media visitors may notice this mistake right from the introduction. 

That brings us to the second mistake. 

2. Writing intros that don’t address the core pain points

BOFU writers often write poor introductions because they do not deeply understand the reader’s pain points. I’ve made this mistake several times. It takes consistent practice and elaborate customer data to nail the reader’s core pain points in your intro. 

It’s not enough to say that “running business is hard these days” or “it is difficult to find the right software for your business.” You must focus deeply on the specific problems and pain points the reader wants to solve within the context of the article’s promise.

Take the article’s intro for example: 

This intro addresses the problem of “finding the right newsletter for your business” instead of addressing the problem related to finding the newsletter platform with a reliable email delivery rate. Nothing in the intro talks about delivery rate. 

Even if the title was “13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Free Plans,” the intro still doesn’t address the pain points because a person looking for a free plan is not really concerned about “budget constraints.” They are looking for a free plan because they probably did not have a budget in the first place.

Instead of telling them things they already know, such as “there are so many features to compare,” discuss the problem of finding the newsletter platform with the right free plan. 

Something like this:

BOFU writing is pain-point content writing. You cannot convert if you don’t demonstrate a deep understanding of their problems and how to solve them. 

3. Intro that lacks a unique mechanism

When reviewing products based on specific terms (free plans, delivery rate, small business), you must describe what you did to derive a trustworthy conclusion. 

For example, when I compared Wrike and ClickUp’s customization features, I explained where I collected data and how I intend to use the data. 

“We picked apart the best newsletter platforms on the market” is not a sufficient mechanism for creating a list of newsletter platforms with the best delivery rates (or free plan). 

On what criteria did you pick apart the best newsletter platforms? 

  • Did you pick apart the best newsletter platform with free plans and compare their perks so I can choose the right one for my business?
  • Did you pick apart the best newsletter platforms on the market and compare their delivery rates so I can choose the right one for my business?

You have to sell your content before selling products. 

That involves describing the unique mechanism you’ve employed to make the blog post worthwhile. That is how you build trust in your readers and convert them to customers. 

Consider this example from Zapier on the same topic:

4. Writing subheaders out of context

Subheaders are the pillars of your article. If they are out of context, your content lacks a defined structure and frustrates the reader. 

Essentially, you’ll make the reader do all the hard work of connecting your thoughts for you. 

Before I analyze the subheader that follows the intro, let me set the context for you. 

  • The article’s title on social media says: 13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Free Plans [+ reliable delivery]
  • The H1 on the page says: 13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Email Delivery You Can Count On.
  • The last part of the article’s intro says the article will review the best newsletter platforms on the market.

Now, the first subheader of the article says

  • An overview of 13 popular email newsletter tools.

Popular? Really?

An overview of 13 POPULAR email newsletter tools is not the same as a review of newsletter platforms with the best free plan and delivery rates

Do you now see why it is essential that your BOFU content presents a unique mechanism?  

If you’re writing an overview of newsletter platforms based on their popularity, your mechanism might involve factors like each platform’s number of G2 reviews, social media followers, customers, etc. Those are mechanisms for weighing popularity– not free plan perks or delivery rates. 

In addition to this confusion, the sentence following the subheader implies that the writer developed this overview by “critically reviewing the top newsletter tools favored BY CREATORS.

Where did the idea of “CREATORS” come from? 

This is a classic example of having unclear expectations and an undefined mechanism. If you’ve created a list of tools according to the opinion of Creators, your intro should clearly state that it reviews the best tools for creators. 

When the writer introduced the word “Creator,” they automatically removed small business owners and e-commerce sellers from the content’s promise. 

The writer is saying that the blog post I’m about to read was written with creators in mind, whereas the title and your introduction did not make such a promise.  

An overview of “email newsletter tools for creators” was not the expectation. Therefore, the mechanism should not be an overview of newsletter tools according to creators’ opinions should not be the mechanism. 

Writing subheaders out of context stresses the reader because you’re forcing them to do the hard work of connecting your thoughts and intention. Why should they do that when there are 9 other articles on the SERP with better delivery. 

A single word can throw an entire article out of tone!

In my experience, such errors occur when the writer doesn’t understand the semantic features of their title or keyword. 

What are semantic features, and how do they work in BOFU content? 

Let’s take a look at that in the next point. 

5. Poor understanding of semantic features and context

Semantic features is a linguistic concept that explains the meaning of words in terms of their relationship with other words. 

For example, the word “actress” means the referred entity is (1) a female and (2) a performer. So, when talking about this actress, you must address them from the context of being a female performer. 

In content writing, the semantic features of a keyword or title should dictate what the article covers. When writers don’t understand what their article should cover, they tend to create loosely structured content, get the pain points wrong and ultimately fail to convert the reader. 

Take a moment to study the following chart illustrating the distribution of a keyword and its variations according to their semantic features.

The same way Actress = +female, +performer, -male

The keyword PTO Tracker = +spreadsheet, +PTO tracking software, +HR management software, +Time tracking software.

Here’s what that means: :

  1. A spreadsheet is a PTO tracker. 
  2. A PTO tracking software like Timetastic? Obviously. 
  3. An HR software like BambooHR has PTO tracking features. 
  4. A time tracking/management software like Clockify has PTO tracking features. 

They are all PTO trackers because they can be used to track PTO. Therefore, if you’re writing about the best “PTO Trackers”, you can feature all the tools above in your blog post without writing out of context. 

But when the reader looks for PTO Tracking Software (emphasis on software), spreadsheets are automatically out of the list. Why? Because a spreadsheet is not software; it’s a tool. 

If you are selling a PTO tracking software like Timetastic and understand your target audience, you’ll know that eight times out of ten, people who google PTO tracking software want to move away from clunky spreadsheets. 

For these reasons, your article structure should not feature spreadsheets; otherwise, you’ll write out of context. 

However, you can mention spreadsheets within your article for semantic contexts. That way, you’re improving rank signals by showing Google the context of your writing. 

Take one of my articles, ranking in the top 3 for over 20 commercial-intent keywords. 

You can see the distribution of semantic context across the article to match the title “AI note-taking software for busy sales reps.” That way, the reader understands they are in the right place, and the writer qualifies to talk about their problems. 

So, in the context of the ConvertKit article, using words like “Creators,” “small businesses,” and “e-commerce business” is effective for improving semantic context. But using either of those words as the core mechanism of the article contradicts the semantic features of the title “13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Delivery Rates You Can Trust.”

6. Selling the wrong value proposition:

Imagine being the founder a Newsletter platform. And you’re asked to say one thing about your product. 

Just one thing! No second chance! 

What will you say?

I bet it’s not this:

“Our platform has a drag-and-drop feature that allows you to design your newsletter in minutes.” 

No! 

Not when 100 founders like you have said the same thing!

So, why do writers still say these generic things about products? 

Why do writers still get value propositions wrong?

Most times, it’s because they don’t understand the product and the reader’s pain point enough. So, they say generic (fluff) things to meet the word count or keep the reader busy. 

In the ConvertKit article, the first sentence about ConvertKit is off! In fact, it is not a value proposition but a blank declaration. 

Have a look:

First of all, I don’t think there’s any business owner who doesn’t want a sustainable career. Have you?  It is an arguable opinion. And that’s precisely why it’s a blank declaration. 

You don’t need to say this when you can just say what makes your product a valuable piece of software for the reader. 

Secondly,  the sentence following that declaration fails to suffice the claim with tangible evidence. The writer implied that ConvertKit is the best newsletter platform because Danny makes $45,000 in under two years. 

Question: If I start a newsletter on Sendloop and make $100k in the first month, does that make Sendloop the best newsletter platform for creators? No. 

The introduction of this article shows the writer doesn’t know the customer enough to sell to them. The product copywriting proves the writer doesn’t understand the product enough to sell. This combination is a recipe for zero-conversion. 

The writer talks about ConvertKit’s delivery rate later. However, given the fact that delivery rate is one of the primary reasons for writing this article, it requires more than one sentence. 

In fact, the first paragraph states the obvious instead of stating ConvertKit’s delivery rate and explaining the mechanisms ConvertKit employs to ensure their users enjoy a reliable delivery. 

Let’s assume the intended title is 13 Best Newsletter Platforms with Free Plans and Delivery You Can Trust. What would make a potential customer happy is a clear understanding of what they’ll get from CovertKit’s free plan compared to Moosend and Getresponse. Then, you correspond that value proposition to ConvertKit’s 98% delivery rate. That way, they can make an informed decision.

Instead of going on with blanket declarations, just sell the most significant value a subscriber will get from your free plan and delivery rate.

Let me show you:

  1. The image below shows Convertkits’ free plan package. 
  1. And the image below shows Mailerlite’s free plan.

By comparing the perks, the writer should have subheaders that sell each email platform on a unique free plan offering. That way, your H2s look like this: :

  1. ConvertKit: Free plan with unlimited landing pages, forms, and broadcasts 
  2. Mailerlite: Free plan with 12,000 monthly emails 

When you suffice that with each product’s delivery rates, the reader knows exactly what they are getting from each product (in addition to the obvious drag-and-drop features). 

7. Misrepresenting your competitor’s product

A BOFU writer can misrepresent competitor products (1) Highlighting the competitor product’s defects and (2) giving the competitor product a low rating by cherry-picking features.

Let’s begin with the first one. 

Highlighting your competitor product’s defect

When you write a roundup of the BEST products for a use case, you are expected to highlight only the BEST product. 

Think about it.

There are over 300 products that help you start a newsletter. If you’ve spent hours selecting 13 of the BEST, they must be the best. The reader should be safe to choose anyone without regrets.

In that case, highlighting how a product is bad and inefficient is dishonest to your reader. It’s okay to say the product might be unsuitable in specific scenarios. But, defining the product as bad or unreliable is unethical and contradicts the promise of your article. 

If a product is so bad that you call it unreliable, it shouldn’t be on a list of BEST products. 

Look at Sendloop. 

If these ratings are true, how did Sendloop make its way onto the list of best newsletter platforms?

In the ConvertKit example, Beehiiv’s email delivery was described as “unreliable” according to “some users” who experienced issues with delivery. 

You should exclude a product from a list of 13 Best products if it is unreliable. You don’t have to waste time highlighting its defects. 

Giving your competitor product a low rating cherry-picking features

As I said earlier, everything you say in a BOFU content must correlate with the semantic features of the search phrase. In an article about free plans and delivery rates, free plans and delivery rates should be the selection criteria

It is inappropriate to explicitly declare a competitor product unsuitable because it “lacks” XYZ features on its free plan when those features only exist on your premium plan. 

If I sign up for your free plan today, can I use the feature for free? No? In that case, that feature is not an appropriate measure of effectiveness within the article’s context. 

It is acceptable to say they lack those features. But it is inappropriate to create a rating table and riddle your competitor’s product in red marks. 

For example, ConvertKit says Substack lacks features such as automated funnels, landing pages, and lead magnet delivery.

Question: Does a newsletter platform need these features to guarantee a reliable delivery rate? No. 

Substack has a free plan; which is the criteria for being on this list. Therefore, the product’s rating (see screenshot below) is a misrepresentation of its value as a newsletter platform with a free plan and a reliable delivery rate. 

Instead, focus on what’s on your competitor’s free plan and explain how the package can be helpful for the reader. 

It’s okay to say Sendloops’ limit of 300 emails per month is below average since most newsletters offer between 500 to 1000 emails. That’s fair. But to say they lack advanced features is misrepresentation by cherry-picking data. 

If we’re going by perfect check marks, it’s safe to say MailerLite is better than ConvertKit. See the ratings below: 

8. Exaggerating your value 

The central idea of BOFU content writing is simple. If your product is good and you know its effectiveness, just say it. No exaggeration. No unrealistic claims. No fluff. 

When you make unrealistic claims or inflate your product’s benefits, potential customers may become skeptical or even perceive your content as dishonest.

If your newsletter platform has a 99% delivery rate– it is not Flawless. An email delivered to 99 people out of 100 is not flawless. That one person missing might be the big whale client on my list. Let the reader derive that conclusion.

Instead of using questionable adjectives, describe what the adjective means using your process-level value proposition. 

In that case, it would be better to say

that ConvertKit has a delivery rate of 99%, which is above the industry– average, making it one of the most reliable newsletter platforms, even for subscribers on the free plan. Every 14 days, we audit the sender reputation, do X and Y, to ensure each subscriber’s email hosts keep them on the whitelist. That way, we guarantee your email never hits the spam. 

That way, you’re backing up the claim (that you’re arguably the best newsletter platform with delivery) by showing the mechanism that enables you to achieve those numbers. 

9. Mechanical inaccuracies

Mechanical inaccuracy makes the reader look like they know nothing about the topic, or they don’t care about the reader– or both!

Here are five instances of mechanical inaccuracies you should avoid in your next BOFU content. 

MI #1

Writing an article about the best newsletter with a free plan and featuring several newsletter platforms without free plans. 

  • Flodesk doesn’t have a free plan: 
  • Constant Contact doesn’t have a free plan:
  • Sendlooop doesn’t have a free plan.
  • ActiveCampaign doesn’t offer a free plan.

MI #2

Making a claim in one part of your article and unconsciously disputing the claim in another part or an interlinked article. 

In this example,  the writer says: 

Your delivery rate depends on your newsletter tool. 

Then, in this article from ConvertKit, the writer says:

Most factors that influence deliverability are in the hands of the sender

So which one? The newsletter platform or the sender? 

The article was interlinked because the writer hoped the reader would read it. If they did find this contradiction, you’ll leave them confused and skeptical about your knowledge because you’re essentially making an argument for and against a subject at once.

MI #3

The writer says the only way for the reader to know a newsletter tool’s delivery rate is if they publicly disclose it. 

This claim has two problems:

  1. Most newsletter platforms don’t publicly disclose their deliverability rate. That means the basis for this article is flawed since its goal is to review the best newsletter platforms with reliable delivery rates. Because that begs the question, “where did you get your delivery rate data from?” But since the writer didn’t actually talk about delivery rates, it’s fine.
  1. A publicly disclosed newsletter delivery rate is NOT the ONLY way to know a newsletter tool’s delivery rate. A quick Google search for “mailerlite delivery rate” will show you research data from third-party tools (who are more reliable anyway) on the delivery rate of several email newsletter platforms. In that case, the basis for that argument is flawed. And because the writer is talking to “creators”, some of whom are familiar with similar third-party data, the writer makes the reader question their authority to write on this topic. When they don’t trust your judgment, they won’t buy from you. 

MI #4

The writer says readers must ensure a newsletter platform offers a 100% free plan before choosing them. 

But the CTA following that section says, “Try ConvertKit for free”. 

This CTA means “try,” the tool for “free.” 

Why are you selling me a trial when you promised a free plan?  

As a ConvertKit free plan user, I understand that when a reader clicks that CTA, ConvertKit activates the premium plan for you for 14 days before downgrading to the free plan. That way, you enjoy the premium and still get the free plan without paying. 

However, since this article exclusively promotes a 100% free plan, which ConvertKit offers, the CTA is misleading and will hurt conversion because some readers might hold back for a moment. 

Start your free plan” might be more effective.  

MI #5

The first H2 of the article is titled “an overview of 13 popular email newsletter tools.”

However, Beehiiv, which the writer thinks is “another popular newsletter platform,” was listed under the “other newsletter platforms to consider.” Why is it not featured in the list of popular newsletter platforms if it was popular?

10. Selling non-existent value proposition

Example 1

In an article about the best newsletter platforms with free plans, you don’t need to remind the reader that you have a free plan. That’s literally the reason you featured the tool in this article. 

Example 2

The article is 100% about email marketing, so there is no need to remind readers that what they are about to read is “in terms of email marketing.” This is fluff! 

Example 3:

Saying a newsletter platform “provides the necessary tools for designing newsletters, growing a list, and segmenting subscribers” is NOT a value proposition. It is FLUFF. That’s literally what an email newsletter platform does. 

The article is about newsletter platforms with reliable delivery. Nothing in this paragraph talks about delivery. The same pattern is repeated across the 12 tools on the list. 

Example 4

The writer initially said this article reviews the 13 best newsletters according to creators. It is surprising how they later said a couple of the tools are unsuitable for creators for one or more reasons. If that was the case, why did you feature them in the list then?

In the example below, the first statement says Mailjet is for midsize and enterprise. 

Example 5

In this example, you can see clearly how the text on Sendloop’s hero image says Sendloop is a “custom-built email marketing” platform. That is literally Sendloop’s value proposition. 

Instead they say, “Sendloop is an email marketing platform that aims to make email marketing easy for small businesses and large agencies.” 

This is not a value proposition. There is no email marketing tool that aims to make email marketing hard for users. 

The writer should instead focus on what makes Sendloop one of the best email newsletter platforms for creators. That includes analyzing what creators gain from Sendloop’s free plan. But Sendloop doesn’t even have a free plan. 

11. Cannibalizing the search intent 

Intent cannibalization occurs when your content leads the reader away from their original purpose on the page.

In the case of an article discussing the top newsletter platforms with free plans—it’s important not to divert them from their primary goal, which is subscribing to your free plan.

Why would a reader want to explore your pricing information separately when they can conveniently start a free plan with just a click?

The most detrimental form of intent cannibalization arises when you direct readers to your competitors’ websites, a practice typically reserved for scenarios involving affiliate links. 

While claiming to provide insights into free-plan newsletters and even listing product pricing at the article’s end, they still include calls-to-action that redirect readers to a competitor’s pricing page.

Aside from using misleading CTAs, the writer can also cannibalize intent with interlinks. Take the example below. 

The reader didn’t come to this page because they needed a detailed comparison of ConvertKit and Substack. Instead, they aim to determine which newsletter platform boasts the best delivery rate and free plan. 

If interlinking is necessary, opt for contextual call-outs rather than calls to action. I’ll delve deeper into this topic at a later time.

Those are the 11 mistakes that can stifle conversion from your BOFU content.

Observations and questions are welcome. 

Share the Post:

Related Posts

Ready to drive more in-market buyers to your SaaS?

Right now, 100s of them are searching for the solution your software provides.