Channel Cannibalization: When a Marketing Win Isn’t Real Growth
A channel metric can rise while total revenue stays flat — the gain came from somewhere else. How to diagnose cannibalization and measure it.
Practical A/B testing frameworks, behavioral science, and conversion optimization — for growth leaders responsible for revenue.
A channel metric can rise while total revenue stays flat — the gain came from somewhere else. How to diagnose cannibalization and measure it.
Most low-traffic SaaS teams do not have a testing problem. They have a math problem. If your pricing page gets 8,000 visits a month, a small A/B testing
Token price and benchmark scores are the wrong scoreboard for choosing an AI coding model.
When you are trying to spot bot traffic in A/B tests, the numbers can be alarming. In June 2026, Cloudflare Radar reported that bots made up 57.
I have seen six-figure decisions ride on an event that never fired. The dashboard said no lift, but revenue reports told a completely different story.
A test can win on paper and still lose money. I see this all the time in B2B SaaS. A page changes, form fills rise, the dashboard looks good, then sales
A winning test can still lose you money. I see this a lot in high-stakes A/B testing. The team has a solid hypothesis, clean analytics, and good intent,
Most bad reruns do not fail in the stats tool. They fail in the story a team tells itself during A/B testing. A first test comes back weak, messy, or
If the same visitor sees variant A on Monday and variant B on Wednesday, your A/B testing efforts are not measuring behavior. They are measuring confusion.
I have seen teams ship the wrong variant because week three landed on quarter end, and buyers stopped moving. The test looked clean, but the revenue impact
Most teams pick an A/B testing method based on who can ship faster this sprint. That is how bad bets get dressed up as experimentation.
You ran the test. Signups moved. Activation moved. Revenue did not. At least not yet. This is where many SaaS teams make an expensive mistake.
Most low-traffic SaaS teams do not have a testing problem. They have a waiting problem. If you only get a few thousand meaningful users a month, a clean
Most bad product tests don't fail because the idea was weak. They fail because the test assigned treatment to the wrong unit.
Your test can look clean and still be wrong. If analytics starts only after consent, you are not measuring visitors. You are measuring the subset willing
When I review a B2B SaaS test plan, I start with one question: can people inside the same account affect each other? If the answer is yes, user-level A/B
A test can look like a winner because three customers showed up with a corporate card. I've seen teams ship bad changes, celebrate the lift, then spend a
If your team can't find a winning test in 30 seconds, the name is broken. I care about experiment naming conventions because I've watched bad names slow
Most SaaS checkouts do not fail because the buyer suddenly stops wanting the product. They fail at the last minute when doubt beats momentum, which is why
A test can lift conversion and still hurt revenue. I have watched teams ship winners that looked great in the dashboard but weak in the finance review.
You can run a clean test and still make the wrong call. I see it all the time in SaaS. The experiment is randomized, the stats look fine, and the
Most bad A/B test calls are not statistics problems. They are measurement problems. I see the same mistake over and over.
A test doesn't create value when the chart turns green. It creates value when somebody decides. I've seen teams run clean experiments, get solid analytics,
Most teams track the wrong activation metric. A practitioner's guide to choosing an activation metric that statistically predicts retention, instrumenting…
Practical A/B testing frameworks, behavioral science, and CRO strategies for growth leaders responsible for revenue. Practical. Free. Weekly.
Opens Substack to confirm your subscription · Free · Unsubscribe anytime