Clarity
Fix firstDo they understand what you do?
Fail2 of 15
2 could name what kind of product this is, unprompted.
Saved report, kept for 60 days — expires in 60 days. Re-opening it is free.
01
Your verdict
Relevance
Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for?
Strong15 of 1515 could quickly tell what problem it solves and who it is for.
Value
Do they actually want it?
Mixed11 of 1511 would take a meeting to learn more.
Differentiation
Is there a reason to pick you over the alternatives?
Weak5 of 155 could name a reason to pick you over a similar option.
See what they thought you were
Your page describes: content strategy services. They said:
- 11×B2B content marketing & brand messaging agencywrong
- 1×B2B content marketing & messaging agencywrong
3 couldn't name one; 12 named the wrong one.
Four separate measures, not stages: all 15 personas answered all four questions. Each square is one persona.
Additional signalBrand alignment9 of 15MixedShow finding ▸
Three respondents said the operation appears to be one person plus contractors rather than an agency bench, and questioned who executes retainers. One flagged a discrepancy between total client count and B2B SaaS client count as a capacity concern. Not one of the four layers, and it does not affect the scores above or the order to fix them in.
These are 15 simulated buyers. Want 15 real ones?
Test with humans02
Fix these firstFix these first
Three edits, in the order that matters.
The first is on your weakest layer, the second on the next, the third on the layer the most buyers had a problem with. Each says what to change on the page and why, with one simulated answer behind it.
Add a deliverables list under 'What we do' naming exact artifacts and delivery cadence.
Why: A buyer cannot tell what arrives after signing: 'The writing, ghostwriting, and production that carries that plan into the world' names no artifact. Write what ships — messaging doc, positioning guide, number of pieces per month — and when.
3 of 15 raised this
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly…” Show full quote
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly do I buy' answer by a few paragraphs”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated Moves ClarityConcrete over abstractAdd a line under 'We build that first' explaining why this approach beats a content agency.
Why: Strategy, creation and positioning are what every content agency lists, so nothing here says why to pick this one. State the specific difference — getting cited in AI answers, message before volume — as a claim a competitor could not copy.
2 of 15 raised this
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning,…” Show full quote
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning, no evidence I can check.”
Head of Marketing, Technology Services · 1001-5000 employeessimulated Moves DifferentiationGive a reason to choose youAdd one case study under the testimonial video with before/after organic and pipeline numbers.
Why: The page claims content offsets rising CAC but never shows it happening for a client. Name a company, the starting position, the numbers after a stated period.
6 of 15 raised this
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being…” Show full quote
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being cited in AI Overviews”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated Moves ValueProof next to the claim
Keep these · 2
These landed. Keep the wording when you edit around it.
- Keep · Relevance
The opening line names the problem and the buyer without inference
“The reader is spelled out explicitly too — there's a literal bullet list, "This is for you if… You're VC-funded B2B SaaS doing $150K+ MRR, you're already running…” Show full quote
“The reader is spelled out explicitly too — there's a literal bullet list, "This is for you if… You're VC-funded B2B SaaS doing $150K+ MRR, you're already running paid acquisition and feeling dependent on it" — and a "not for you if" list right after it”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated - Keep · Differentiation
The founder's verifiable byline history is the only differentiator respondents could name
“The ROSS Intelligence bit — "cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" — is the only thing here with a specific, checkable anchor”
Head of Marketing, Software · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
03
All recommendations
Clarity
Fail2 of 15Moves ClarityConcrete over abstract
Replace 'We build that first' with a numbered sequence of what happens in weeks one to twelve.
Why: 'We build that first. After that, everything downstream gets easier' leaves the method invisible. Spell out the steps — audit, message, publish, measure — with a timeframe for each.
3 of 15 raised this
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly…” Show full quote
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly do I buy' answer by a few paragraphs”
Moves ClarityProof next to the claim
Add the source and date beside the 99.2% AI Overview statistic.
Why: The 99.2% figure and the '15 to 20%' CAC rise appear with no source, which makes readers doubt the rest of the page. Cite the study and year inline.
3 of 15 raised this
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly…” Show full quote
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly do I buy' answer by a few paragraphs”
Differentiation
Weak5 of 15- Shown aboveAdd a line under 'We build that first' explaining why this approach beats a content agency.
Moves DifferentiationFront-load the meaning
Move the ROSS Intelligence and law review citations above the logo strip.
Why: The verifiable byline history is the one thing readers found distinct, and it sits buried below the problem section. Lead with it near the top where the reason to choose belongs.
2 of 15 raised this
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning,…” Show full quote
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning, no evidence I can check.”
Moves DifferentiationProof next to the claim
Name the funding stage of two or three clients in the logo strip.
Why: The logo wall mixes IBM with small startups and proves nothing about work at $150K+ MRR. Label a few logos with stage and engagement so the strip supports the stated ICP.
2 of 15 raised this
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning,…” Show full quote
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning, no evidence I can check.”
Value
Mixed11 of 15- Shown aboveAdd one case study under the testimonial video with before/after organic and pipeline numbers.
Moves ValueSpecifics beat superlatives
Replace the '776+ clients / 20+ B2B SaaS' stat block with outcome numbers.
Why: Client counts measure volume, not results, and the gap between 776 and 20 reads as thin SaaS experience. Show median traffic lift, shortlist inclusion or sourced pipeline instead.
6 of 15 raised this
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being…” Show full quote
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being cited in AI Overviews”
Moves ValueProof next to the claim
Add a result line to each testimonial naming the company and the metric it moved.
Why: The video testimonial carries no number, so it reads as praise rather than evidence. Attach a stated outcome and the client's stage to each quote.
6 of 15 raised this
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being…” Show full quote
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being cited in AI Overviews”
Relevance
Strong15 of 15No specific edits needed here — this layer held up.
Brand alignment
Mixed9 of 15Moves Brand alignmentAnswer the live objection
Add a line under 'Investment' stating who executes the work on retainers.
Why: The page names only Anthony Sills, so buyers assume one person plus contractors and doubt capacity. Say who does the writing, strategy and production, and how many clients you take at once.
3 of 15 raised this
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with…” Show full quote
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with real bench depth”
Moves Brand alignmentName the audience
Rewrite the 'This is for you if' list to speak to marketing leads, not founders.
Why: 'Content and positioning are nobody's full-time job' reads as pre-hire startup, which conflicts with the $150K+ MRR buyer. Name the VP Marketing or Head of Content and how you work alongside an existing team.
3 of 15 raised this
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with…” Show full quote
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with real bench depth”
04
Buyer evidence
Biggest risks
A deliberately adversarial read of the same answers. Each claim was checked back against what the personas said and dropped if nothing supported it.
- high
The page wins attention it cannot convert: buyers identify themselves in seconds, then hit a wall where proof should be.
Ten respondents said the opening names problem and ICP without inference, but seven said there is no case study, before/after numbers, timeframe, or pipeline attribution. Recognition arrives instantly; evidence never does.
- high
The only named differentiator is a person, not a service — which makes the offer unsellable at scale.
Five respondents cited the founder's byline history as credible and distinct, and no other differentiator was named. Three separately read the operation as one person plus contractors, so the differentiator and the capacity doubt are the same fact.
- high
Values-first framing costs the page its strongest asset by pushing the mechanism behind the pitch.
Four respondents called the copy punchy but vague on deliverables and mechanism, with values-first framing delaying the answer. The page spends its clearest moment on positioning and never returns to what is delivered.
- high
The page disqualifies the buyers it names by proving competence only at a smaller stage than its stated ICP.
Two respondents said proof is limited to small startup logos and founder anecdotes with no comparable-stage client carrying attribution metrics, and four read the positioning as built for early-stage founders rather than established marketing orgs.
- medium
Unsourced statistics turn the page's few numbers into a liability rather than support.
One respondent said unsourced statistics undermine the credibility of every other claim, and seven already found proof entirely absent. With no case study to anchor them, the numbers read as invented.
- medium
Testimonials are doing work the page needs metrics for, and they fail at it.
Seven respondents dismissed testimonials as unquantified and asked specifically for measurable pipeline or shortlist-inclusion data. Social proof without attribution reads as decoration next to a $150K+ MRR qualifying threshold.
Clarity
The page never says what is actually delivered
3 of 15
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly…” Show full quote
“the offer itself being wrapped in a values pitch ('cut what doesn't matter, simplify what's left') before the concrete deliverables list showed up, which delays the 'what exactly do I buy' answer by a few paragraphs”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“phrases like "gets you cited" and "one message, said consistently" are punchy but vague enough that I can't tell if it's an SEO deliverable, a messaging doc, or…” Show full quote
“phrases like "gets you cited" and "one message, said consistently" are punchy but vague enough that I can't tell if it's an SEO deliverable, a messaging doc, or something else billable; the actual mechanics of "content built to get you cited" are never defined.”
Senior VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated “it's still vague on how they actually get you cited; I'd want to see specific before/after SEO or pipeline numbers tied to their work, not just the client's…” Show full quote
“it's still vague on how they actually get you cited; I'd want to see specific before/after SEO or pipeline numbers tied to their work, not just the client's own quote that "SEO almost tripled."”
Chief Marketing Officer, Software · 201-500 employeessimulated Statistics appear without sources and damage the rest of the claims
1 of 15
“the "99.2% of searches answered by AI Overview" stat has no source, which makes me discount it rather than trust the rest more”
VP of Marketing, Software · 501-1000 employeessimulated
Differentiation
Nothing on the page proves the work scales beyond small startups
2 of 15
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning,…” Show full quote
“Against a competitor who showed me even one case study with our scale and a real number, this page loses on specifics — it's all positioning about positioning, no evidence I can check.”
Head of Marketing, Technology Services · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 2 comments
“To pick this over them I'd need one client case from a company our size with real attribution data, because right now the competitors at least have a…” Show full quote
“To pick this over them I'd need one client case from a company our size with real attribution data, because right now the competitors at least have a bench and a process I can picture, while this page only gives me Anthony's personal credibility.”
Chief Marketing Officer, B2B SaaS · 201-500 employeessimulated The founder's verifiable byline history is the only differentiator respondents could name
5 of 15 · what worked
“The ROSS Intelligence bit — "cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" — is the only thing here with a specific, checkable anchor”
Head of Marketing, Software · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 5 comments
“The founder credibility line would pull me in over a faceless agency: "His byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... ran years before 'AI startup' was a funding category" and…” Show full quote
“The founder credibility line would pull me in over a faceless agency: "His byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... ran years before 'AI startup' was a funding category" and "cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" — that's a specific, checkable claim, not generic "thought leadership" fluff”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated “"byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" is a concrete, checkable claim, not a vague superlative, and it signals…” Show full quote
“"byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" is a concrete, checkable claim, not a vague superlative, and it signals real domain depth”
VP of Marketing, Software · 501-1000 employeessimulated “"byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" — is the one thing that'd tip me toward picking this over…” Show full quote
“"byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review" — is the one thing that'd tip me toward picking this over a generic content shop, because it's specific and checkable, not "award-winning team" fluff.”
Senior VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated “"his byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... ran years before 'AI startup' was a funding category... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review." That's a…” Show full quote
“"his byline coverage of ROSS Intelligence... ran years before 'AI startup' was a funding category... cited in the Stanford Law Review and the GW Law Review." That's a checkable, non-generic proof point — I could actually go verify it”
Chief Marketing Officer, Software · 201-500 employeessimulated
Value
No case study, no metrics, no attribution — proof is entirely absent
6 of 15
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being…” Show full quote
“there's no number attached to what "worked" looks like — no case study saying client X cut paid dependency by Y% or moved from page 3 to being cited in AI Overviews”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated See all 5 comments
“there's no case study with actual before/after pipeline or SEO numbers, just Anthony's ROSS Intelligence byline history and a few warm testimonials”
Chief Marketing Officer, B2B SaaS · 201-500 employeessimulated “A documented before/after: a named client's organic traffic, share-of-voice, or AI-Overview citation rate moving over a fixed period tied directly to their messaging/content work — not a vague…” Show full quote
“A documented before/after: a named client's organic traffic, share-of-voice, or AI-Overview citation rate moving over a fixed period tied directly to their messaging/content work — not a vague 'SEO almost tripled' testimonial with no baseline or timeframe”
VP of Marketing, Software · 501-1000 employeessimulated “I wouldn't move budget on the meeting alone; before signing a retainer I'd want them to show pipeline or shortlist-inclusion data from actual client engagements, not just "SEO…” Show full quote
“I wouldn't move budget on the meeting alone; before signing a retainer I'd want them to show pipeline or shortlist-inclusion data from actual client engagements, not just "SEO almost tripled" from one testimonial”
Chief Marketing Officer, Software · 201-500 employeessimulated “To pick this over them I'd need one client case from a company our size with real attribution data, because right now the competitors at least have a…” Show full quote
“To pick this over them I'd need one client case from a company our size with real attribution data, because right now the competitors at least have a bench and a process I can picture, while this page only gives me Anthony's personal credibility.”
Chief Marketing Officer, B2B SaaS · 201-500 employeessimulated
Relevance
The opening line names the problem and the buyer without inference
10 of 15 · what worked
“The reader is spelled out explicitly too — there's a literal bullet list, "This is for you if… You're VC-funded B2B SaaS doing $150K+ MRR, you're already running…” Show full quote
“The reader is spelled out explicitly too — there's a literal bullet list, "This is for you if… You're VC-funded B2B SaaS doing $150K+ MRR, you're already running paid acquisition and feeling dependent on it" — and a "not for you if" list right after it”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated See all 7 comments
“The problem is also named directly: rising paid CAC ("up 15 to 20% a year"), content not offsetting it, and not making the AI/buyer shortlist before sales calls.”
Chief Marketing Officer, B2B SaaS · 201-500 employeessimulated “the opening line "You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" tells me the problem (inconsistent messaging eating into content ROI)”
VP of Marketing, Software · 501-1000 employeessimulated “"You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" plus "Paid CAC is up 15 to 20% a year. Your content was…” Show full quote
“"You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" plus "Paid CAC is up 15 to 20% a year. Your content was supposed to be the offset" tells you exactly the pain: rising CAC, weak organic, messaging that's inconsistent.”
Senior VP of Marketing, B2B SaaS · 5000+ employeessimulated “the opening line "You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" and the "This is for you if... You're VC-funded B2B…” Show full quote
“the opening line "You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" and the "This is for you if... You're VC-funded B2B SaaS doing $150K+ MRR... already running paid acquisition and feeling dependent on it" section spell out both the problem (rising CAC, inconsistent messaging, not making buyer shortlists) and the reader (VC-funded B2B SaaS, $150K+ MRR) in explicit terms”
Chief Marketing Officer, Software · 201-500 employeessimulated “"You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways," and then it spells out "for VC-funded B2B SaaS companies" right after”
Head of Marketing, B2B SaaS · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “Opening with "You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" plus "Paid CAC is up 15 to 20% a year" tells…” Show full quote
“Opening with "You're at $150K+ MRR and your team still explains what you do four different ways" plus "Paid CAC is up 15 to 20% a year" tells me exactly the pain (rising CAC, muddled positioning, content not offsetting paid spend) before I even scroll.”
Senior VP of Marketing, Software · 5000+ employeessimulated
Brand alignment
The page reads as a solo operator dressed as a boutique agency, raising doubts about who…
3 of 15
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with…” Show full quote
“the "20+ clients / B2B SaaS companies" stat sitting right next to "776+" — those two numbers together read like a solo consultant's portfolio, not an agency with real bench depth”
VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 501-1000 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“"Eighteen years and 776+ clients later" and the "20+ B2B SaaS companies" number reads like a solo operator's practice, not an agency with real bench depth”
Chief Marketing Officer, Technology Services · 201-500 employeessimulated “one guy, Anthony Sills, "18 years and 776+ clients," but only "20+ B2B SaaS companies" as the actual focus, so it reads like a solo consultant who's built…” Show full quote
“one guy, Anthony Sills, "18 years and 776+ clients," but only "20+ B2B SaaS companies" as the actual focus, so it reads like a solo consultant who's built up a broad freelance career and is now repositioning as a specialist boutique”
Head of Marketing, Software · 1001-5000 employeessimulated The page reads as built for early-stage founders, not established marketing organizations
3 of 15
“the line about teams being "one to five people juggling five content formats" and "content and positioning are nobody's full-time job" doesn't describe my situation at all, we…” Show full quote
“the line about teams being "one to five people juggling five content formats" and "content and positioning are nobody's full-time job" doesn't describe my situation at all, we have dedicated functions for this”
Head of Marketing, Software · 1001-5000 employeessimulated See all 4 comments
“it reads like it's aimed at a Series B/C founder who's still wearing the CMO hat themselves”
Senior VP of Marketing, Technology Services · 5000+ employeessimulated “It doesn't feel written for me; it feels written for the smaller, earlier-stage version of me from a decade ago.”
Head of Marketing, Technology Services · 1001-5000 employeessimulated “But we're a 1000+ person tech services company, not a $150K MRR VC-backed startup — their whole "This is for you if" list is aimed at someone much…” Show full quote
“But we're a 1000+ person tech services company, not a $150K MRR VC-backed startup — their whole "This is for you if" list is aimed at someone much smaller than us, so I'm not even sure we're the buyer here.”
Head of Marketing, Technology Services · 1001-5000 employeessimulated
05
How this works
Who we simulated (15 personas)
15 AI-simulated personas matched to your target market. Each answered independently, without seeing your goal, the scoring criteria, or each other’s answers. Attribution is role, industry and company size only.
Head of MarketingSoftware · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Senior VP of MarketingTechnology Services · 5000+ employeesEU
Chief Marketing OfficerB2B SaaS · 201-500 employeesUS
VP of MarketingSoftware · 501-1000 employeesEU
Head of MarketingTechnology Services · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Senior VP of MarketingB2B SaaS · 5000+ employeesEU
Chief Marketing OfficerSoftware · 201-500 employeesUS
VP of MarketingTechnology Services · 501-1000 employeesEU
Head of MarketingB2B SaaS · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Senior VP of MarketingSoftware · 5000+ employeesEU
Chief Marketing OfficerTechnology Services · 201-500 employeesUS
VP of MarketingB2B SaaS · 501-1000 employeesEU
Head of MarketingSoftware · 1001-5000 employeesUS
Senior VP of MarketingTechnology Services · 5000+ employeesEU
Chief Marketing OfficerB2B SaaS · 201-500 employeesUS
Methodology
Every answer on this page was written by an AI model role-playing a buyer profile, scored on Wynter’s B2B Message Layers framework. The personas were sampled in code across role, industry, company size and behavioral traits; the model wrote only the answers. Scores arrive through fixed verdict categories and the counts are computed in our own code, so no number here was written by a model.
Score details: the count and the strength
The count is how many personas cleared the bar on each question. A yes can be unhesitating or come with reservations; the scorecard counts both as a yes, and this is the only place the difference is shown. Per layer:
- Clarity: 2 of 15, 11 without hesitation, 4 with reservations
- Relevance: 15 of 15, all without hesitation
- Value: 11 of 15, all with reservations
- Differentiation: 5 of 15, all with reservations
These answers are AI-simulated and directional. Validate anything you’re betting on with real buyers, your ICPs.
Your next 3 moves
- 1.Add a deliverables list under 'What we do' naming exact artifacts and delivery cadence.
- 2.Add a line under 'We build that first' explaining why this approach beats a content agency.
- 3.Add one case study under the testimonial video with before/after organic and pipeline numbers.
See what real buyers say.
A detailed, section-by-section message test report from verified B2B professionals who are actually in-market for what you sell.
Trusted by
RetentionThis report is kept for 60 days, until 5 Nov 2026, then deleted along with the personas, their answers and everything derived from them. The link stays live for that whole period so it can be shared or revisited, and stops working afterwards.
The email address it was requested from is kept beyond that, because it subscribes you to the newsletter — that was the price of the report. You can unsubscribe in one click from any issue, which stops the email without affecting a report still inside its 60 days. The public report page never shows the requester’s address.
The email address it was requested from is kept beyond that, because it subscribes you to the newsletter — that was the price of the report. You can unsubscribe in one click from any issue, which stops the email without affecting a report still inside its 60 days. The public report page never shows the requester’s address.