Sr. Growth Manager @ ActiveCampaign | Institutional Consultant | Founder

Casey is a growth veteran, with over a decade of experience in helping software companies scale fast. 

Whether it's garnering 28,000,000+ views across Linkedin, Reddit and Quora, or pioneering new growth levers (like booking his team on hundreds of podcasts), Casey is always looking for creative and value-led ways to grab attention and break from the mold. In his current role leading marketing at DoWhatWorks, he is looking to reshape how brands split test and experiment online. 

On the consulting side, Casey has worked with some of the world's biggest firms including places like McKinsey, Blackrock, Colemans, GLG, Guidepoint, etc., where he provides institutional guidance to PE/VC teams around topics such as: SMB marketing vendor selection, SaaS pricing, SaaS marketing/CRM tool differentiation, market analysis, inbound marketing, conversion rate optimization and marketing automation.

Casey also teaches classes at UCSD and Stanford extension around demand creation, email marketing and content marketing.

I run a Substack that does analysis on the world's top websites based on our proprietary database of A/B test results: https://dowhatworks.substack.com/

Current areas of extensive experience...

-> B2B SaaS / B2B Enterprise SaaS / SMB SaaS

-> CRO (Conversion Rate Optimization) / Website optimization

-> Email marketing

-> Content marketing (especially LinkedIn and Reddit)

-> B2B Influencer marketing

-> Pricing optimization

Casey Hill

I looked at over 50 competitor comparison pages. PostHog had the best ⬇️

Let me start by saying that most competitor comparison pages are dreadful.

They are dishonest (like factually inaccurate about the competitors).

They are misleading. They don’t build trust. They treat the prospect like they are dumb.

And here is the kicker… they don’t convert. 

I have worked with a handful of marketing teams (startups to at-scale orgs) who have shifted retargeting budget away from competitor comparison pages because the CPA was just too high (one spent $800k/m for a quarter and had just 7 sales at a 5-figure ACV)

It makes sense to educate prospects about your strengths (and even mention competitor weaknesses), but the framing is what is killing all these pages.

With Posthog, they do several things that build trust and buck the trend:

1) When describing a competitor, they quote how the competitor describes themselves. No misrepresenting or trying to paint them into a certain box. Just be straightforward.

2) They include a “what people like about [competitor]” and “What people don’t like about [competitor] and then include quotes from reviews (I think they pull from G2). And the real part that builds trust is that they include honest positives. Not weird, fake compliments, “this is a perfect software if you are an enterprise org with 5,000+ employees and a $12 million a month budget for all the consultants you will need”. Just actual strengths. It then makes the weaknesses that they bring up next feel way more realistic. 

Ultimately, the most effective competitor comparisons start with honesty.

That in and of itself is so rare, it’s disarming, and builds trust and confidence in whatever you say next. 

Have you read a competitor comparison that really resonated (or created one that converted really well)?

Chief Marketing Officer @ DoWhatWorks | Institutional Consultant | Founder

I lined up a call with a top executive to talk through their A/B testing learnings. 

Then it went completely off course…

Them: “Yeah I ran a bunch of tests this quarter. Nothing works. Headline tests, section tests, button tests. None of it moved the needle. Not a focus area any more”.

I listened and took it all in. I had all these notes. 

All this data to compare against their test results. These follow up questions lined up to get into the “why it won”. 

But none of it worked for them. It wasn't even that the variants "lost", they just were the same. They didn't matter.

We still had a nice chat, but after I got to analyzing his situation.

I realized the experience of this exec is actually exceptionally common. 

Optimizely published data saying that 90% of A/B tests "lose" (as in the variant doesn’t show any statistical difference so they stay with the control).

A big part of the problem stems from how we approach testing. 

1. Do we really understand where our traffic comes from and how that impacts positioning? If your traffic comes from paid retargeting ads or if it comes from dark social, what resonates will be very different.

2. Do we design A/B tests with a specific, unified problem we are trying to solve for? Many brands just do a dozen homepage hero headline variants and try and see what wins. But the question always has to be what problem are you solving for? Everything should ladder up to that.

3. Are you testing things that are meaningful? A big gap I found from my chat with that executive was a lack of “meaningful testing”. This means you try 10 copy variants but none of them a) introduce new information or b) provide new direct value. 

I am teaming up with the incredible team from GrowthX AI this Thursday (9AM PST) to do a workshop, where we will get deep into how to better convert your web traffic in 2026. 

Not only will we look at specific A/B tests from dozens of the top brands in the world, but we will address what to test, and how to think about your website in an age of AI discovery.

There is a major problem across AI companies selling agentic products ⬇️

They are unbelievably vague in their messaging. 

I curated a list of 30 top companies selling agents. 

Here are the headlines…

Company A: “We are a frontier research and deployment company providing enterprises with a powerful, cost-efficient, and easy-to-adopt technology to integrate agentic AI directly into their core workflows and processes.”

Company B: “Deploy, orchestrate, and govern fleets of specialized AI agents that work alongside your team”

Company C: “Ops teams can build and manage an entire AI workforce in one powerful visual platform.”

Company D: “[company] is the simplest way for businesses to create, manage, and share agents.”

It took me until company eight on the list that I got one that actually gave me any real information about what it did.

Company H: “Docket's AI agent handles qualification, discovery, and booking while you sleep. Teams see 30%+ more qualified pipeline from the same traffic.”

I understand these brands want the optics of addressing a large TAM, but when you can go to ten sites, and the headlines are almost identical, this isn’t providing any clarity or insight that is helping prospects decide on your product.

What does the data say 💡: I looked at DoWhatWorks database of hundreds of A/B tests around AI messaging. Tests from brands like OpenAI, IBM, Hootsuite, GoDaddy, Notion, and beyond. The takeaway is clear → AI messaging that is clear and explanatory to the capability it solves for (i.e. our support agents provide 24/7 ticket coverage in 42 languages) dramatically outperforms vague or sweeping messaging.

I started my career as the first sales hire at a startup out of Stanford. I scaled TechValidate’s revenue org through an acquisition by SurveyMonkey in 2015. I moved to Jackson Hole in 2018 and became an enterprise rep and “ski bum” for a season and then founded UserEvidence with my long-time friend and co/worker Ray Rhodes in 2020. UserEvidence today has 48 employees across the globe with a Jackson headquarters, series A.

I’m always interested in grabbing coffee, catching a ski lap, or talking B2B customer marketing or house music. Reach out!

Evan Huck

"I wish the whole world was a coloring book so I could get a big rainbow crayon and color the world" - Bridger Huck

My wife and I started making a collection of our 5-yr old daughter's sometimes epically wise (or just plain funny) quotes. This one was from this morning on the way to school.

The cool part is the world IS basically a big coloring book - you get to paint your own masterpiece and make your mark.

It was a good reminder to me as we go into the new year to remove the self-limiting and society-supplied constraints and comparative measurement - there's an infinite # of paths to happiness and success, and you get to do life (and business) however you want.

5 Predictions for 2026: the year noise destroys the Honmoon…so we can build a new one.

1) There will be EVEN MORE vendors in every space as the barrier to entry for starting a business gets even lower with vibe coding. 

But… when you can’t swing a dead cat w/o hitting 3 ragtag vendors and MVP demo-only products - it will make it all the more clear and obvious who the real brands are with enterprise-ready products and demonstrated market traction.

2) Email as a channel will get so noisy with AI spam-cannon slop that it’s practically useless for cold outbound. 

But… Google and Microsoft Outlook will do some big releases mid-year that start to better automatically filter out the noise - e.g. looking up an email domain to see if it actually is the main website of a vendor and not just some random throwaway domain. By end of the year, email should be useable for transactional emails and opt-in marketing from vendors you already know.

3) You’ll get more cold calls on your phone than ever as the new wave of parallel dialers and robo-AI-dialers get more sophisticated and prevalent.

But... the FTC or Apple will do some big update that enables some hardcore filtering of these technologies. The recent comparative success of parallel dialers and phone-originated opportunity generation will be called into question.

4) LinkedIn will start only showing you posts that are at least 4 weeks old

But… they probably will still be LInfluencer slop.

5) As phone, email, and LinkedIn become more questionable for pipeline generation - customer advocates will become the most critical and most efficient source of pipeline. Word of mouth, references, referrals, social amplification, community - will be where the conversations about brands happen.

But… vendors will need new technology and approaches to orchestrate the proactive engagement of advocates at scale, and the intentional harnessing of the voice of the customer. Super excited about building the future of customer advocacy at UserEvidence - it’s going to be a crazy year.

The new Honmoon will be built on Trust and Signal.

P.S. KPop Demon Hunters is now just the default background soundtrack in my head - is anyone else experiencing this? Thank you to my 2 and 5 yr-old for that (though the songs are pretty dang good so it could be worse).

"Alright now we're going to open the Settings Tab and dive into the Roles and Permissions configuration"... is generally NOT how you should start your demos.

But - if you're an enterprise company evaluating a customer advocacy platform (or any platform really) - there's a lot of these features that may not "wow" as a flashy headline showcase - but are actually pretty important to the tactical reality of how you'd deploy a platform in the real messy world when you have 300 sales reps spread across geos, business units/product lines, multiple Salesforce instances, etc

The first thing they teach you in sales school is that buyers buy emotionally, and there's a lot of truth to this - which is why our demos are somewhat of a simplified/abstracted compressed tour of how we'd solve the most important problems we've identified in discovery. And some wizbang....AI did I mention the AI? ;)

But one thing I'd recommend if you're an enterprise (really any company above 200 employees) with some more complex needs - bring in a second pair of eyes with a more rational and scrupulous tilt - RevOps is perfect - especially since these platforms often depend pretty heavily on tight integrations with SFDC, Slack, and other tech stack pillars.

Don't be afraid to ask the vendor for a 2nd more technical demo to validate interoperability with your tech stack, and press on some of the more down-level features (e.g. approval workflows for references, multiple sub-spaces within an advocacy community if you're a big company with multiple BUs/subsidiaries)

And make sure the customer references you ask for are similar in size/complexity to you.

Good Feel is absolutely essential in an evaluation - you want to be excited about the potential relationship with the vendor, and feel confident they are going to be a good partner, but feel is not sufficient - so grab an internal partner that's not feeling the direct pain, and may be less swayed by relationship (didn't go to the dinner/offsite) to help validate the detailed technical plan.

taplio

The Battle

Casey Hill

Evan Huck

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreCasey Hill's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreEvan Huck's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Casey Hill

Evan Huck

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Casey Hill's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreEvan Huck's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreCasey Hill's LinkedIn Performance