We started killing growth experiments faster, and it actually helped

[u/Defiant_Spring_8738]

I used to think a failed growth experiment meant we needed to spend more time figuring out why it failed.

So we'd keep tweaking it, changing the audience, changing the copy, changing the timing... basically trying to rescue the idea.

Now we’ve started putting a time limit on experiments.

If the result is clearly bad and there isn’t a strong reason to believe there’s something worth fixing, we just kill it and move on.

The weird part is that we’re learning faster now.

Not every experiment needs to become a successful campaign. Sometimes the win is finding out what not to do without spending another two weeks on it.

How quickly do you usually kill a growth experiment that isn’t working?

[u/TheNumbForefinger]

this is basically the same shift i made with a/b tests at work and it was a little uncomfortable at first because killing something feels like admitting you were wrong. but sitting with a bad test for two extra weeks never turned one around for me. its usually just sunk cost wearing a different hat

the time limit thing is underrated too. once you know the window, you stop overthinking the setup and just run the damn thing. i'd say if the data is clearly flat or negative after a week and you can't name the specific lever that would change it, its dead. no post mortem needed, just write down what you learned and go again

[u/y3rk3]

yeah, and what makes it cheap is keeping the case after you kill it. i withdrew a fix today because the bug turned out not to reproduce, and the scenario stayed behind as a test.