Samantha Leal's Linkedin Analytics

"Why did you choose our product?" If you're asking customers this question, you're getting bad data. People are terrible at explaining their own decisions. They rationalize after the fact, telling you what sounds good rather than what actually happened. After studying how Bob Moesta (co-creator of Jobs To Be Done) conducts customer interviews, I've completely changed my approach. Instead of asking WHY, he asks about WHAT HAPPENED: ❌ "Why did you choose our product?" ✅ "What was happening the day you decided to look for a solution like ours?" ❌ "What features do you like?" ✅ "Walk me through how you used it the first time." ❌ "How satisfied are you with the product?" ✅ "What were you able to do after purchasing that you couldn't do before?" The difference is crucial. The first set of questions gets you made-up reasons. The second reveals the actual story. This isn't just theory. Companies that master this approach see massive results: 🟠 𝗠𝗰𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗱’𝘀 7x’d milkshake sales, not by changing the recipe, but by realizing commuters wanted a portable, filling breakfast. 🟠 𝗔𝗶𝗿𝗯𝗻𝗯 unlocked 50%+ more host signups by addressing the real fear: “What if I get a terrible guest?” 🟠 𝗠𝗶𝗹𝗸𝘆 𝗪𝗮𝘆 stayed relevant for 100+ years by positioning itself not as a heavy snack like Snickers, but as a light, satisfying treat. Your customers won't tell you why they buy. But they will tell you what happened when they did. What's your favorite question to uncover key insights?

I've said this in four different meetings this week, which means it's time to share it publicly: DOCUMENT YOUR MARKETING EXPERIMENTS. I just watched a startup spend $86,000 testing a channel they had already tested (and abandoned) last year. Why? Because nobody wrote down the hypotheses and the results. I know you think you'll remember what worked. You won't. I know you think your team is on the same page. They're not. I know you think "we'll get to documentation later when we're not so busy." You never will. The most expensive marketing isn't the test that fails. It’s the test you have to run twice because nobody documented the results the first time. Your growth isn’t failing because you’re testing the wrong things. It’s failing because you’re not building on what you learn. Start documenting your tests. Even if it’s just a Google doc. Even if it’s messy. Anything is better than the expensive amnesia most startups operate with.

I’ve said this to multiple founders this week, so it’s time to say it here: STOP expecting social media to deliver instant ROI. If you’re asking, “what’s the ROI of posting on LinkedIn?” I guarantee you’re thinking about it wrong. → Did your cold emails work in 2 weeks? No. → Did your SEO drive leads in 30 days? No. → Did your network build itself overnight? No. Social works the same way. You show up, earn trust, and let compounding do its job. The people who win: ✅ Post for 12+ months, not 2 ✅ Build relationships, not just content ✅ Track engagement & inbounds, not just impressions The people who lose: ❌ Expect results in 2 weeks ❌ Quit when it feels “slow” ❌ Never commit long enough to see it work If you’re still asking, “But what’s the ROI?”—you’re proving my point. It’s long-term brand equity, not short-term lead gen. P.S. Yes, I’ve said this before. And I’ll say it again next month. Because just like social media, repetition is the game.

A lot of founder "insights" are just expensive guesses. Last month, I met with a founder convinced his ideal customers were CTOs. "How do you know?" I asked. "We built this for technical leaders." That's not evidence, though. We tested his assumption with real data: → 68% of their paying customers were actually VPs of Product → The CTOs they had acquired churned 3x faster → Their unit economics were negative targeting technical leaders He had built an entire go-to-market strategy on a guess. This isn't uncommon. I see it all the time: ❌ "Our customers care about X feature" (never validated) ❌ "This channel doesn't work for us" (based on one poorly run test) ❌ "Our pricing is right" (never seriously tested alternatives) After working with dozens of startups, I've noticed a pattern: ✅ Successful founders validate assumptions with real data ❌ Struggling founders build on unvalidated assumptions The validation playbook I've seen work: 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀 5 best customer interviews > 50 internal brainstorms 𝗥𝘂𝗻 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 $500 spent on validation > $5,000 spent on execution 𝗙𝗮𝗰𝘁-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 "Here's what we learned" > "Here's what I think" 𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝘂𝗿𝗲 = 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 Document what doesn't work with the same care as what does Stop building growth strategies on educated guesses. Start validating before scaling. It saves time, money, and headaches. Ever realized too late that you were targeting the wrong audience? Drop your worst "expensive guess" in the comments. And if you're scaling and want a second pair of eyes on your GTM strategy, DM me.

"We need to grow faster. Can you help scale our ads?" A B2B SaaS founder came to us with this request. But like a doctor who never lets patients self-diagnose, we started with data. Something didn't add up: → Ad CTR: 1.5% (above 0.9% industry average) → Trial conversion: 28% (vs 22% benchmark) → Monthly churn: 10% (!!!) The growth problem wasn't acquisition. It was activation. After working with dozens of startups, I've noticed a pattern: Founders obsess over acquisition while ignoring activation. We ran a diagnostic and found: - 68% of users never completed basic setup - No one owned the critical first 14 days - Sales celebrated closing deals while customers silently churned Instead of more ad spend, we launched a focused sprint on activation. 𝟭. 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 (𝟯𝟬 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀) = fix ownership gap - Assigned a dedicated onboarding owner - Created a documented handoff between sales and customer support - Built an activation checklist with progress tracking 𝟮. 𝗠𝗶𝗱-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 (𝟲𝟬 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀) = simplify experience - Streamlined first-run experience by cutting steps from 15 to 5 - Developed automated onboarding sequence - Restructured success metrics around activation 𝟯. 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗺 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 (𝟵𝟬 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀) = align incentives - Tied bonuses to activation metrics - Created cross-team retention reviews - Implemented customer success scoring Three months later: Onboarding completion: 32% -> 71% Monthly churn: 10% → 6.2% Revenue: +47% with the same ad spend Your biggest growth levers aren't always where you think they are. Sometimes they're hiding in plain sight, in the gaps between teams where customers silently disappear.

Marketing teams fail when they lack clarity. And if your CEO doesn't understand what marketing is doing? That's on you. Marketing leaders need to communicate their plan in business terms - not marketing jargon. Try this framework: 1️⃣ What's the #1 business goal? (e.g., "Grow revenue from $2M to $4M.") 2️⃣ How will marketing contribute to it? (e.g., "Drive 1,000 new SQLs at $250 CAC.") 3️⃣ What's the plan to achieve that? (e.g., "Double down on LinkedIn ads + inbound content.") 4️⃣ How will you measure success? (e.g., "Pipeline growth, SQL conversion, CAC efficiency.") The CEO shouldn't have to dig through dashboards to know if marketing is working. They should see the impact in 60 seconds. The best marketing leaders I know can articulate their entire strategy on one page. The rest hide behind complexity. Make your marketing plan so clear that anyone in the company can repeat it. That's when you know it will actually get worked on.

Most brands have a differentiator. They just forget to talk about it. They’re trucking in fresh tortillas from Mexico... They’re hand-stitching every pair of boots by artisans trained for decades... They’re cold-brewing for 18 hours to preserve every note of flavor and function... And burying that story under buzzwords and generic marketing speak. I see this constantly: → Founders with 10 years of experience, but no origin story. → Products built with care and science, marketed like commodity fluff. Customers can't value what you don't communicate. This is what Shaan Puri calls The Tortilla Principle: You’re doing something exceptional, and saying nothing. Your job isn’t just to build the product. Your job is to tell the story. 🟠 What’s the one detail about your product that would make someone say: “Wait—you do that?!” Lead with it. That’s your tortilla.

You don’t need an “AI initiative.” You need AI practices baked into how your team works, thinks, and ships. Because culture isn’t what you say, it’s what you do. And if AI isn’t part of your workflow, it won’t stick. That’s what stood out in Tobi’s internal memo at Shopify. It wasn’t about exploring AI. It was about 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 it. At a cultural level. Across every team. → Embedding it into team rituals → Baking it into performance reviews → Treating it like a baseline skill—on par with email or Slack Here’s what I took away: → 𝗔𝗜 𝗶𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗮 𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗲-𝘁𝗼-𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹. It’s becoming a baseline expectation - like knowing how to use Slack or write an email. Not being AI-literate in 2025 will be like saying “I don’t use the internet.” → 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁. Shopify isn’t waiting for people to "figure it out." They’ve added AI usage to performance reviews, prototyping phases, even peer feedback loops. That’s how you drive real adoption. → 𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝘀𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗳 𝘆𝗼𝘂’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲. Most teams still default to: “We need more people” “We don’t have time” But the real question is: 𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚? As Tobi puts it: "𝘽𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙨𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙃𝙚𝙖𝙙𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨, 𝙩𝙚𝙖𝙢𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙘𝙖𝙣𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙬𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙙𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝘼𝙄." AI isn’t a tool on the side. It’s the multiplier. And it only works if it’s part of how your team actually operates.

Why your growth meetings feel like a waste of time. I watch it happen again last month. Six smart people joining a Zoom call. Spreadsheets open. KPIs on screen. Everyone pitching their ideas. Two hours later: 12 new ideas. One day later: No ownership assigned. Two days later: Zero next steps. Two weeks later: nothing implemented. No progress to report. Everyone back in the same room with fresh new ideas. No wonder these meetings weren't driving results. Growth meetings aren't idea factories. They're decision engines. And at $2M ARR, you can't afford to chase every shiny object. So we rebuilt their process: The Brutal Filter - every idea must pass this: → Does this improve our #1 growth lever? → By how much? Based on what evidence? → Can we measure results within 2 weeks? → What would success look like? → What has to stop to do this? The No-BS Review After each test: → Did we improve the number we said we would? → What did we learn? → Were our assumptions wrong? → What do we kill, keep, or scale? Here's what happened: Their weekly meetings went from two hours to 45 minutes. Ideas down. Results up. Because real growth isn't about how many ideas you generate. It's about how ruthlessly you execute on the right ones.

Focus isn't just a nice-to-have skill for entrepreneurs. It's the foundation of success. I've worked with dozens of startups, and the pattern is clear: Founders confuse motion with progress. Netflix co-founder Marc Randolph shared a powerful post yesterday: "The worst mistake you can make is to try and do everything 5% of the way, rather than picking 4 and doing each of them 125%." This explains the 90% startup failure rate. Resources are scarce and yet most teams default to: → Chasing 3 channels instead of mastering 1 → Building 8 features instead of perfecting 3 → Exploring 2 markets instead of dominating 1 They chase breadth over depth. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, confirms: "Once you have figured out what to do, be unstoppable about getting your small handful of priorities accomplished quickly." Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Peter Thiel all emphasize the same principle: Focus yields exponential returns. The strategy isn't to do more with less. It's to do fewer things extraordinarily well. What are you willing to ignore today so you can execute at 125% on what truly matters?

I ignored "brand" for years. Thought it was fluffy marketing that couldn't be measured. Growth was my focus: CAC, payback period, gross margins, conversion rates, retention. Brand was something I'd invest in "later" - once I had extra budget. Took me years to realize how wrong I was. The best companies didn't choose between brand and growth. They used brand as a growth multiplier. Kira Klass (who led brand at Brex and Notion) just published a framework in Kyle Poyar’s Growth Unhinged newsletter that I wished I had seen when I got started. Her point: Brand isn't some fuzzy, unmeasurable concept. It directly impacts your growth metrics: 🔶 𝗢𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗰𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - Are people looking for you by name? - What's your branded vs. non-branded search ratio? 🔶 𝗧𝗶𝗺𝗲-𝘁𝗼-𝗩𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 - Do brand-aware users convert better? - Does brand familiarity reduce onboarding friction? 🔶 𝗘𝘅𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 - Do brand-aware users spend more? - Who explores your full offering faster? 🔶 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗱-𝗼𝗳-𝗠𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗵 - Is your product becoming part of users' identity? - Are users invested in your ecosystem? The evidence is clear: → Notion users who came through brand channels converted to team usage significantly faster than paid acquisition → Figma became worth $12.5B by becoming synonymous with modern design (not just having better features) → Monday.com has to pay for traffic that Notion gets organically through brand strength What blew my mind - many metrics we already track ARE brand metrics: 🔶 Organic traffic 🔶 Viral coefficients 🔶 Word-of-mouth acquisition 🔶 Time-to-value As Kira puts it: "Product-market fit gets you in the game, but brand-market fit helps you win it." This isn't abstract theory. This is bottom-line impact. It was never about choosing between brand OR growth. It is about being intentional about brand TO DRIVE growth.

Your CAC isn't an ad problem. It's a trust problem. I reviewed a startup's metrics: → $98 cost per lead → 8.5% landing page conversion → 76% of visitors bouncing Their ad creative? Strong. Their targeting? On point. Their strategy? Keep testing new creatives and audiences. But they were looking in the wrong place. The problem wasn't before the click. It was after. Here's what I've learned auditing dozens of startup funnels: Every bounce is a broken promise. Every abandoned form is lost trust. 5 trust leaks that destroy conversions: 1. 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵 - your ad says one thing. Your landing page says another. 2. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰 𝗺𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 - they clicked for specifics, not vagueness/platitudes. 3. 𝗠𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗳 - no evidence = no confidence. Remember Proof > Promise. 4. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 - every field you add costs you conversions. Time it wisely. 5. 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲 - making them wait for value guarantees they leave. What most do: ❌ Blame the creative ❌ Switch channels ❌ Test new audiences What actually works: ✅ Match messaging across touchpoints ✅ Place social proof beside every CTA ✅ Simplify forms to 3 fields maximum ✅ Deliver immediate value, not just promises One startup I worked with cut CAC by 28% in just 2 months. No budget increase. No new channels. Just fixing trust leaks. Stop throwing money at expensive traffic. Start fixing the trust barriers making that traffic worthless.

Your best marketing strategy is sitting in your inbox. Not in growth blogs. Not in competitor research. In customer conversations you're ignoring. I recently audited a SaaS company stuck at $1.8M ARR. They’d already burned $120K testing channels, tweaking ads, and running endless experiments. Meanwhile, their founder had 50 customer calls in Grain - just sitting there, untouched. The growth playbook was right there. They just weren’t looking. Here's what we found when we actually listened: → Their best customers were discovering them through Slack groups (not Google) → The language in their ads didn’t match how customers described the problem → The real buying trigger wasn’t what they thought it was → The actual value prop wasn’t even on the website This happens all the time: ❌ Founders obsess over new channels ✅ But ignore what their best customers are already telling them The fastest path to growth isn't inventing new strategies. It's listening to signals that already exist. Start looking for patterns in: - Support tickets (what frustrates them) - Sales calls (what excites them) - Cancellation reasons (what disappoints them) - First 90-day behavior (what keeps them) One founder I worked with found their entire go-to-market strategy by asking one question to 20 customers: "How would you explain our product to a colleague?" The words they used became the website copy. The places they hung out became the marketing channels. The problems they described became the targeting. Stop guessing. Stop overcomplicating. Your best growth strategy is already in your customer conversations. I help founders do this all the time. If you’re not sure where to start, DM me and I’ll send you my framework for mining customer insights.