> It's difficult to rank 1 page vs multiple pages on google It's my understanding that landing pages haven't been a tool for being ranked for years now. Back i

> It's difficult to rank 1 page vs multiple pages on google It's my understanding that landing pages haven't been a tool for being ranked for years now. Back in the heyday of search engine affiliate offer spamming, landing pages might have served this purpose. But today, landing pages are more for being a critical part of a "funnel" for marketing. An ad campaign may link to a landing page which has been crafted specifically for that segment. The entire page has a focus to get the prospect to the next step in the funnel via the "call to action." As part of your testing, you would have multiple landing pages per segment which you rotate in your ads. Therefore, the most important metric would be the conversion rate of the landing page (the percentage of visitors follow through to the next step via the call to action.) Therefore, it's not the design of the landing pages which is important. All that matters is how they convert. An ugly landing page which converts well is infinitely better than a landing page which doesn't convert at all. Someone who is well versed in marketing will know this, and won't be impressed with a portfolio. The next issue is that if you have a landing page which converts well, the last thing you want to do is put it in a portfolio. A high performing landing page is a secret sauce of an ad campaign. You don't want for competitors to steal your secrets. Landing pages generally aren't meant to be discovered outside the campaign. You probably don't even want for them to be indexed by Google. This is different from the main portal of the website, because the web portal is more general with less focus on calls to action. You also can't shape the main portal to different segments.