On a side note, this landing page is actually an A/B test we're performing on the effectiveness of an email drip campaign vs a hard sell to signup (which is currently still up on the homepage). The writer of the article was part of a 10% of people that were redirected from the homepage to the try landing page and so he hardlinked directly to that page in the article.

That's our mistake.

Also as a side note, you privacy statement link is 404ing.

Edit: got the email! thanks

Mailchimp's autoresponders can't be set for immediately, only "within an hour" because I don't think they want people using it as a transactional email / content delivery system

Good call on the 404. That's bad. Fixing now.

Is this the same course offered on Udemy? (https://www.udemy.com/how-to-teach-yourself-to-code/)

Potential suggestion: add a syllabus or at least a (more) concrete summary of what course takers will learn/build. I read the 'Sign up for this course and you'll learn' section and it's very thin on the specifics. The Udemy page is much better in this aspect, IMHO.

Aren't you being too literal here? Vast majority of internet users have been trained to see "submit" for "okay I'm done filling out this form, next!".

But if you don't have an email form doing thousands of impressions and want to just bet on this one, your bet would be a very bad bet to make.

The reality is that you're limited in the number of A/B tests you can do, both by traffic but also by your own time and resources. So you can run a test against something that is generally accepted (like what text works on a button) or against more important changes like headline copy or page layout.

The rest of your comment is a straw man fallacy. Of course you can't test everything. But, you know...it might just be reasonable to test the conversion button on your landing page, especially when someone who does a lot of testing tells you that it has a big impact. Because that's a more informative prior than "we should just use the default behavior".

No-one ever got fired for buying IBM.

As for market saturation, I think it depends on what your thoughts are about theories that some futurists (like Doug Rushkoff) have put forward saying that one day everyone will have to learn how to code. If everyone will one day learn how to code, then it's a pretty big market.