Find the growth loop

To: Sam Okoro, Head of Growth From: [PM], Growth Re: Our growth loop, and where the two engineers should go next quarter

Summary: Our primary loop is the badge. Today it does not compound, and the active creator base is shrinking. The "Make a form like this" pilot is the only one of the four ideas that could make it compound. Both engineers should ship it properly, with a holdout. We should not double paid search.

1. The loop

Creators publish forms → respondents see the badge → some respondents become creators → they publish forms.

Last month the loop worked like this: - 40,000 forms × 120 respondents = 4.8M respondents - 0.9% clicked the badge = 43,200 clicks - 11% of clicks signed up = 4,752 sign-ups - 38% of sign-ups published = 1,806 new publishing creators

The badge is our largest source of creators. Templates produced 840 publishers and paid search 441. Badge creators also retain best: 85% are active the next month, against 71% for templates and 64% for paid.

2. Is it compounding? Not yet.

Each active creator produces about 267 respondents a month, which yields 0.10 new publishers per creator per month. With 78% monthly retention, a creator stays about 4.5 months. Over that lifetime, each creator brings in about 0.46 new creators.

A loop compounds only when this number exceeds 1. At 0.46, the badge amplifies our other channels by about 1.8×, but it cannot sustain itself.

The overall picture is worse: - We keep 14,040 of last month's 18,000 active creators. - We add about 3,100 new publishers. - That gives about 17,100 active creators, a 5% monthly decline. - At current rates the base settles at roughly 10,700 creators.

This assumes the 78% retention figure covers the whole base, which is how I read the data.

3. The four ideas

Double paid search: no. - Each sign-up costs $38. Only 21% publish, so each publishing creator costs about $181. - Each publisher is worth about $25 in revenue (9% upgrade × $20 × 14 months). - Adding the loop's downstream creators raises that to only about $46. - Doubling spend would add about 440 publishers a month for an extra $80k a month, and cost per sign-up usually rises with spend. - This idea doesn't need engineers. I'd ask Finance to hold the budget rather than spend it because it's approved.

200 more template pages: not now. - This is not a loop, because new creators don't create more pages. Our team writes them, so output grows only as fast as we write. - We don't know how many pages produce today's 6,000 sign-ups, so we can't estimate the yield. - Templates publish at only 14%. - This is mainly content work, not engineering work.

Referral credit: no. - It rewards sign-ups, not publishing, which invites low-quality and fake sign-ups. - $10 of Pro credit means nothing to the 91% of creators who never upgrade.

"Make a form like this": yes. The pilot changed every stage of the loop:

At network scale, that would mean about 4,400 badge publishers a month instead of 1,800. Each creator's lifetime yield would rise from 0.46 to about 1.1, so the loop would start to compound. Next month's active base would be about 19,700 instead of 17,100.

The margin is thin. The loop reaches the break-even of 1.0 at 0.83 publishers per 1,000 respondents. The pilot beat that by only about 10%. We also need to treat the pilot result with caution: - It covered 500 forms, which may not be representative. - It ran for two weeks, so check whether the 30-day publish window had fully elapsed. - We have no next-month retention data for these creators. People who copy a form may be less committed than people who build one.

4. What the engineers build

1. Staged rollout with a 20% holdout of forms on the old badge, randomised by form and run for at least 8 weeks so we see 30-day publishing and next-month retention. 2. Creator controls and safety: - Copies take the form structure only, never responses. - Creators can turn off copying for sensitive forms. 3. Instrumentation for each stage: click, sign-up, publish, next-month activity, and Pro upgrade. Results should be split by form type so we learn which forms spread best.

5. How we'll know it worked

Primary metric: new publishing creators per 1,000 respondents, treatment vs holdout. - Ship to 100% if it stays at or above 0.83, the level needed for the loop to compound. - Below about 0.6, the change is still positive but the loop won't compound. We would keep it and look for other levers.

Quality checks: - Next-month retention of copy sign-ups should be at least 70%. If it falls much lower, the extra volume won't last. - The upgrade rate of these creators to Pro should be close to 9%.

Guardrails: - Form completion rate is unchanged. - Creator complaints and copy opt-outs are low. - Pro upgrade rate across the base is unchanged.

Business outcome: the active creator base grows month on month by the end of the quarter, instead of falling about 5%.

Bottom line: paid search and templates rent growth one sign-up at a time. The copy-this-form change is our one realistic chance to make growth compound, and a proper rollout will tell us within a quarter whether it does.

To: Sam Okoro, Head of Growth Subject: Next-quarter engineering allocation

Recommendation: Put both engineers on the respondent-to-creator loop: ship and rigorously measure “Make a form like this.” Don’t double paid search or build the referral programme this quarter. Keep producing SEO templates through the content team; the available evidence doesn’t show that engineering is the constraint there.

Our primary loop is: a respondent sees a Pollen badge → visits or copies the form → signs up → publishes a form → brings in more respondents. It’s our clearest product-led acquisition loop because creators’ forms distribute the invitation to make a form.

It is not currently compounding. An average active creator publishes 2.22 forms (40,000 / 18,000), producing about 267 respondent exposures per month. Applying the current badge funnel gives roughly 0.085 next-month-active creators per active creator (267 × 0.9% × 11% × 38% × 85%). That’s well below the 1.0 needed for the loop to reproduce itself.

The pilot is promising: using its 1.6% click rate and 52% publish rate, the same calculation would imply about 0.21 next-month-active creators per creator—roughly 2.4× the current rate, if those new publishers retain at the existing 85% rate. That retention is an assumption, not a pilot result. Even so, the loop would still be subcritical: it could help offset churn, but it would not independently drive exponential growth.

Engineering plan - Engineer 1: Build the copy-to-editor flow, preserving the original form’s structure and making it easy to publish a customized copy. - Engineer 2: Instrument the full funnel and run a randomized rollout against the current badge. Track respondent exposure, click, signup, publish within 30 days, and next-month activity by variant.

How we’ll know it worked: Make next-month-active creators per 1,000 respondent exposures the primary outcome, with publishing and next-month activity as required funnel checks. Compare treatment with control, and don’t assume the pilot’s 52% publish rate will hold at scale. Expand only if the lift is sustained and new creators’ next-month activity doesn’t materially underperform the current badge cohort.

Why not the other ideas: Paid search costs $38 per signup. At its observed 21% publish rate, 9% upgrade rate, and $280 average Pro revenue lifetime, that implies about $5.29 in lifetime revenue per signup before costs—poor grounds for doubling spend. SEO already brings 6,000 signups, but only 14% publish; test additional pages with the content team before assigning engineering. The referral offer has no conversion or retention evidence, and paying credit per signup risks rewarding low-intent users.

To: Sam Okoro, Head of Growth From: Product Subject: Put both engineers on the respondent-to-creator loop

Recommendation

Use both engineers to ship and validate “Make a form like this.” It strengthens our existing growth loop, has encouraging experimental evidence, and attracts creators who historically activate and retain better than creators from other channels. Don’t double paid search or build a referral programme next quarter. Keep existing SEO acquisition running, but don’t call 200 team-written pages a growth loop.

Our primary loop—and whether it compounds

Our loop is:

Creator publishes → respondents encounter Pollen → some become creators → those creators publish → more respondents encounter Pollen.

The badge connects product usage to new acquisition. SEO and paid search feed creators into that loop; they are not themselves loops. Team-written template pages don’t automatically generate more template pages.

At last month’s volume, 40,000 forms × 120 respondents implies 4.8 million respondent encounters. Applying the badge funnel gives:

Assumes pilot conversion rates hold at scale and new creators retain at the historical badge cohort’s 85% rate. These are illustrative ceilings if some of the 4.8 million encounters are on Pro forms without badges; actual forecasts must use badge-visible encounters.

The loop recurs, but we have not demonstrated self-sustaining compounding. Each existing active creator generates approximately 0.10 new publishing creators per cycle under the current funnel, or 0.085 who remain active the following month. Meanwhile, 22% of existing active creators lapse—about 3,960 of an 18,000-creator base.

The proposed experience raises those figures to approximately 0.244 new publishers and 0.207 subsequently retained creators per existing creator. That approaches churn replacement, but does not establish durable compounding. Activation and retention occur over different windows, so this is a replacement diagnostic, not an exact monthly growth forecast. Pro upgrades also remove badges, reducing future distribution.

Why this beats the alternatives

• Paid search is economically unattractive on the supplied numbers. Its $38 sign-up cost becomes approximately $181 per publishing creator. Expected lifetime revenue per publishing creator is only $25.20: 9% upgrade × $20 × 14 months, before costs. Finance approval doesn’t fix that gap.
• SEO produces useful acquisition, but the marginal return is unknown. Existing pages generated 840 publishers, versus roughly 1,806 from the badge. We don’t know what 200 additional pages would deliver, and their production remains dependent on our team.
• Referral credit rewards the wrong milestone. Paying for sign-ups invites low-intent referrals and abuse. We have no evidence of referral demand or incremental retained creators.
• The badge pilot improves two stages: clicks rise from 0.9% to 1.6%, and publishing from 38% to 52%. Together, that is 2.43× more publishers per respondent, not merely better click-through.

Engineering allocation and success criteria

Assign one engineer to the copy-to-editor experience and one to experimentation, instrumentation, and rollout safeguards, working as a single team. Copy only reusable form structure—not responses or sensitive data—and provide appropriate creator controls.

Run a persistent randomized experiment, assigned by creator to avoid mixing experiences across their forms. Measure actual badge-visible encounters, not total respondents.

Primary metric: incremental next-month-active creators per 100,000 badge-visible encounters. The baseline is approximately 32; the pilot implies 78, if retention holds. Track clicks, sign-ups, and 30-day publishing as diagnostic metrics, not the final win.

Wait for the activation and subsequent retention windows to mature. Check respondent completion, creator complaints, copied-form publishing quality, Pro conversion, and badge exposure lost through upgrades. Attribute downstream acquisition consistently and test for cannibalization of other channels.

Success means a statistically credible increase in retained creators without material guardrail deterioration. At full illustrative exposure, the opportunity is roughly 2,200 additional retained creators per monthly cohort. Separately, claim compounding only when observed cohort reproduction—including repeat publishing, churn, and badge removal—demonstrably exceeds replacement.