We ran an accidental test with the PE newsletter this week, and I expected turbulence – but metrics stayed the same.
Here’s what happened in a nutshell:
1. I had a last-minute trip to Italy and had to prepare the weekly issue in-between a handful of meetings and interviews
2. I squeezed my agentic engine (trained on my data, content, newsletter, ICP, and private data soruces) to produce a new issue
3. The copy was far from ideal (the premise was there, but the AI buzzwords remained in, and I let that slide).
4. Moreover, I had an assistant help with the Flippa links and other meta content, but one of the exit deals slipped halfway at the very beginning of the newsletter.
It’s usually a natural disaster.
But the original issue landed in inboxes on Wednesday morning (as I was boarding to Munich) with the scattered first paragraph and some AI buzzwords inside.
Fast-forward three days (as I repost the PE insights on LinkedIn), the number of subscribers for the past 3 days are 2% lower than the past Wednesday trio and 16% fewer than the previous period (2 weeks back). CTR holds steady, too.
Oddly enough, it blends closely with the FP&A topic on lagging vs. leading indicators that the issue itself covers.
Most experiments are meant to be. Some prove consumer habits that one wouldn’t naturally (or voluntarily) test.
Growth Shuttle InsiderGrowth Shuttle Insider
FP&A Insights are Lagging Instead of Leading for Portfolio Companies
Mario Peshev
