Skip to content

Case 5: Investigating Funnel Drop-offs at User Level

Case 5: Investigating Funnel Drop-offs at User Level

Section titled “Case 5: Investigating Funnel Drop-offs at User Level”

Funnel showing 90% drop-off (50,266 people) between landing page and achieve screen

  • This isn’t just “55,000 views dropped to 5,000”
  • These are 50,266 SPECIFIC individuals you can investigate
  • Each one has a complete profile and session data

2. Click through to see the dropped-off users

Section titled “2. Click through to see the dropped-off users”
  • PostHog allows clicking on the drop-off segment
  • Opens a list of people who viewed landing page but didn’t reach achieve screen
  • Can scroll through hundreds/thousands of actual user profiles

3. For each user in the drop-off, you can examine

Section titled “3. For each user in the drop-off, you can examine”

Session Behavior:

  • Did they bounce immediately? (session recordings show this)
  • How long did they stay on landing page?
  • Did they interact with anything?
  • Where did they drop off?

Traffic Source Context:

  • utm_source: fb, google, direct, etc.
  • utm_medium: cpc, social, email, etc.
  • utm_campaign: Specific campaign ID
  • utm_term: Keywords or targeting parameters
  • utm_content: Ad variation identifier
  • ad_id: Exact ad that drove them
  • adset_id: Ad set configuration
  • campaign_id: Campaign identifier
  • aff_sub: Affiliate/channel identifier

Landing Page Context:

  • landing_page_source: Full URL with all parameters
  • $initial_host: Domain they landed on
  • Which landing page variant did they see?

User Context:

  • Geography (subdivision, timezone)
  • Device (viewport width/height)
  • Browser properties
  • When they first visited (first_seen_at)

With all this context, you can discover patterns:

  • “All users from campaign X are bouncing” → Bad ad creative or targeting
  • “Users from utm_term=Y convert better” → That keyword/targeting works
  • “Mobile users (viewport width < 500) drop off more” → Mobile experience issue
  • “Traffic from specific ad set bounces immediately” → Ad/landing page mismatch
  • “Users who land on variant A bounce, variant B converts” → A/B test winner identified

Instead of just “90% drop-off,” you can segment:

  • Drop-off rate by campaign
  • Drop-off rate by landing page
  • Drop-off rate by traffic source
  • Drop-off rate by device type
  • Drop-off rate by geography

This reveals WHERE the problem is, not just THAT there’s a problem

Example Investigation Questions You Can Answer

Section titled “Example Investigation Questions You Can Answer”

❓ “Is this drop-off consistent across all campaigns?” → Segment by campaign_id, check conversion rates

❓ “Are we buying bad traffic from specific sources?” → Filter by utm_source and ad_id, compare bounce rates

❓ “Is the landing page broken on mobile?” → Segment by device properties, watch mobile session recordings

❓ “Did a specific ad drive poor-quality traffic?” → Look at users with that ad_id, watch their sessions

❓ “Is one landing page variant performing worse?” → Compare landing_page_source variants

  1. Numbers represent real, investigable people: The 50,266 drop-offs aren’t a black box
  2. Context enables pattern discovery: Rich metadata lets you find “all X have problem Y”
  3. From aggregate to actionable: You go from “90% drop-off” to “Campaign 12023 with utm_term=discount is driving bounces”
  4. No blind spots: You can investigate any angle you think of - if the data exists, you can segment by it
  5. Hypothesis testing without waiting: Don’t need to ask for reports - just filter and see
  • Click-through from funnel drop-offs to person list
  • Full property data retained at person level
  • Ability to filter and segment by any property
  • Session recordings linked to every person
  • UTM and campaign tracking automatically captured
  • Multiple ways to slice the same data (by campaign, source, term, content, etc.)