Clarity
Do they understand what you do?
Strong15 of 15
15 could name what kind of product this is, unprompted.
Saved report, kept for 60 days — expires in 43 days. Re-opening it is free.
01
Your verdict
Relevance
Can they tell what it solves, and who it's for?
Strong13 of 1513 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
Fix firstIs there a reason to pick you over the alternatives?
Weak7 of 157 could name a reason to pick you over a similar option.
Four separate measures, not stages: all 15 personas answered all four questions. Each square is one persona.
Additional signalBrand alignment4 of 15FailShow finding ▸
One respondent said the positioning lands as a mid-market competitor while lacking enterprise-grade proof points, and another said the tone aims at a generalist HR buyer rather than a technical evaluator. The page's register and its evidence are read as mismatched. 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 mid-market reference customer beside the results strip.
Why: Every name in the proof strip — Australia Post, BOQ Group, dentsu, iSelect — is far larger than the companies reading, so the numbers read as irrelevant rather than impressive. Add at least one result from a company in the 51–200 range with headcount named ('120-person…'), placed in the same 'You didn't just hear it from us' block so it is seen with the others.
4 of 15 raised this
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a…” Show full quote
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a same-size customer story with a real number attached, that would beat this page”
Head of People Operations, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeessimulated Moves DifferentiationProof next to the claimAdd baselines to the customer results strip.
Why: '3× fewer interviews per hire', '2,340 hours saved annually' and '75% reduction in employee attrition' arrive with no before figure, no role type and no measurement window, so they are read as marketing rather than evidence. Give each a baseline and period — from what to what, over how long, for which roles and volume — either inline or in a one-line footnote beneath the strip.
3 of 15 raised this
“fewer interviews compared to what baseline, over what role types, and does that saving survive once you add in the time candidates spend on these job-simulation tasks upfront?”
Head of Recruitment, Human Resources · 201-500 employeessimulated Moves ValueProof next to the claimExplain how AI grading scores video and presentation answers.
Why: Under 'Efficient Hiring', the line 'our platform simulates day-to-day work and scores candidates instantly' is the page's biggest unanswered question — readers wanted the mechanics of grading open-ended formats, and the FAQ answers with metaphor rather than method. Add two or three sentences of method next to that claim: what the model is scored against (role-specific rubrics/answer keys built by IO psychologists), whether humans review or override, and how scores map to a ranked shortlist…
3 of 15 raised this
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data…” Show full quote
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data behind "assessments are developed and validated by experts"?”
HR Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 501-1000 employeessimulated Moves ClarityProof next to the claim
Keep these · 1
These landed. Keep the wording when you edit around it.
- Keep · Clarity
The core mechanic — replacing resume screening with auto-scored job simulations — is…
“candidates do job-simulation tasks (coding challenges, spreadsheet tests, video responses) and AI grades and ranks them, replacing resume screening”
Head of People Operations, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeessimulated
03
All recommendations
Differentiation
Weak7 of 15Moves DifferentiationSpecifics beat superlatives
Replace "the only platform dedicated to" with a testable difference.
Why: 'Vervoe is the only platform dedicated to testing real job skills in the context of your role and company' is the page's sole reason-to-choose and it is an unverifiable superlative that a competitor could rewrite verbatim. Swap it for the concrete thing rivals cannot copy: simulations built per role and company rather than generic test libraries, open-ended tasks like spreadsheets and presentations auto-scored (not multiple choice), and independent bias audit by Holistic AI. State how many…
4 of 15 raised this
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a…” Show full quote
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a same-size customer story with a real number attached, that would beat this page”
Moves DifferentiationName the audience
Show a staffing or high-volume screening use case.
Why: The proof is uniformly internal enterprise hiring, so agencies and high-volume recruiters see nothing that resembles their work. The 'Interactive Experiences' section already claims 'high-volume screening' — attach an actual scenario to it: applicants screened per requisition, time from application to ranked shortlist, and a named customer doing volume placement rather than corporate hiring.
4 of 15 raised this
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a…” Show full quote
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a same-size customer story with a real number attached, that would beat this page”
Value
Mixed11 of 15- Shown aboveAdd baselines to the customer results strip.
Moves ValueProof next to the claim
Publish validity evidence behind the Assessment Validity claim.
Why: 'developed and validated by experts, tested for accuracy' is the page's answer to whether the scores predict job performance, and it says nothing measurable. Buyers asked for predictive validity before crediting the outcome claims. State the correlation between assessment score and post-hire performance rating, the sample size, and link the technical documentation next to that paragraph.
3 of 15 raised this
“fewer interviews compared to what baseline, over what role types, and does that saving survive once you add in the time candidates spend on these job-simulation tasks upfront?”
Relevance
Strong13 of 15No specific edits needed here — this layer held up.
Clarity
Strong15 of 15Moves ClarityLead with the use case
Replace the hero line with what the product actually does.
Why: "Better talent starts with skills" plus "The most trusted skills-based AI platform for hiring" tells a reader nothing about the mechanic, and the purpose only becomes clear several screens down. The clearest reading anyone reached was 'replace resume screening with auto-scored job simulations' — write that in the hero: e.g. 'Replace resume screening with job simulations your candidates complete and AI scores.' Keep the category word ('skills assessments') in the subhead, not the headline.
3 of 15 raised this
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data…” Show full quote
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data behind "assessments are developed and validated by experts"?”
Moves ClarityAnswer the live objection
State ATS integration by name in the Efficient Hiring section.
Why: 'Automate hiring workflows, save hours' and '2,340 hours saved annually' rest on the assessment fitting into an existing pipeline, but the page never mentions the ATS. Readers said that without it the time-to-hire argument does not hold. Name the integrations (Greenhouse, Workday, SmartRecruiters, Lever) and state what passes through — invite candidates from the ATS, scores and ranked shortlist written back to the candidate record.
3 of 15 raised this
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data…” Show full quote
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data behind "assessments are developed and validated by experts"?”
Brand alignment
Fail4 of 15Moves Brand alignmentName the audience
Name the company size the product is built for.
Why: The tone claims enterprise ('Enterprise-grade data protection', eight G2 Enterprise badges) while the register elsewhere addresses a generalist HR buyer, and readers found the two mismatched. Resolve it by saying who this is for near the hero — e.g. 'Built for talent teams hiring at volume, from 50-person scaleups to 10,000-person enterprises' — so the enterprise logos read as range rather than as an entry requirement.
2 of 15 raised this
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the…” Show full quote
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the "why" fast but goes soft exactly where I'd push, like "assessments are developed and validated by experts" with zero methodology attached.”
Moves Brand alignmentProof next to the claim
Give the AI audit a link and a published result.
Why: 'Our platforms AI is independently audited for fairness and bias by Holistic AI. With results openly reported, every decision is explainable' is the strongest credibility asset on the page but is stated and left unsupported — and 'every decision is explainable' is a large claim with nothing behind it. Link the audit report, date it, and say what explainability the buyer sees: which sub-skills produced a score and where a candidate lost points. Also fix the typo 'platforms'.
2 of 15 raised this
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the…” Show full quote
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the "why" fast but goes soft exactly where I'd push, like "assessments are developed and validated by experts" with zero methodology attached.”
Moves Brand alignmentSpecifics beat superlatives
Rewrite "Never make another bad hire" in the closing CTA.
Why: 'Never make another bad hire with AI-powered skills assessments' is an absolute promise no assessment vendor can keep, and it sits directly above the demo button, so it is the last thing a technical evaluator reads. Replace it with something the page can support — e.g. 'See how a role-specific simulation is built and scored, in 20 minutes' — which also makes the single next action concrete.
2 of 15 raised this
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the…” Show full quote
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the "why" fast but goes soft exactly where I'd push, like "assessments are developed and validated by experts" with zero methodology attached.”
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 disqualifies itself from every account that is not enterprise, and it does so with its own proof assets.
Eight of 15 respondents read the named customers — Australia Post, dentsu, BOQ Group — and the overall tone as addressed to enterprise TA directors, not to 51-200 person companies, staffing agencies, or smaller shops (theme 3). Four more said the statistics and case studies lose credibility because every referenced customer is far larger than they are (theme 5). The logos are not neutral social proof; they are actively read as an exclusion notice, and no theme shows a single respondent outside…
- high
The page never states who it is for, so readers assign it a target audience and then rule themselves out.
Several of the eight respondents in theme 3 stated the page never explicitly names a target company size at all. In that vacuum, the logos and register do the targeting: two respondents read the tone as aimed at a generalist HR buyer or a mid-market competitor without matching proof (theme 6). Leaving segment unstated does not broaden reach — it hands the decision to the strongest visual cue on the page.
- high
Every quantitative claim on the page is currently unusable as evidence.
Four respondents flagged that the fewer-interview-rounds and case study statistics arrive with no baseline, no role-type breakdown and no methodology, one called them outright unsupported, and two asked for before/after or predictive-validity data before crediting them (theme 4). Four more discount the same numbers because the customers behind them are far larger (theme 5). The numbers are simultaneously unverified and un-analogous — there is no reading in which they persuade.
- high
An AI scoring product refuses to explain its scoring, and the FAQ makes it worse.
Three respondents said the mechanics of how video and presentation responses are graded are obscured by marketing language rather than explained, and one noted the FAQ answers with generic metaphors instead of methodology (theme 0). The FAQ is where a skeptical reader goes for methodology; finding metaphors there converts an open question into an assumption that there is nothing to show.
- high
The central operational promise — faster time-to-hire — is asserted and then structurally undercut.
Two respondents said ATS integration is left unclear and untested, and one stated directly that without it the skills assessment does not address time-to-hire at all (theme 1). Combined with results reported without baselines or methodology (theme 4), the speed claim has neither a mechanism nor a measurement behind it.
- medium
The page loses readers before the evidence has a chance to work.
One respondent said the hero line is abstract enough that the product's purpose is unclear without scrolling (theme 2), and three said vague marketing phrases stand in for technical specifics throughout (theme 0). Everything the page needs to prove sits below a fold that readers have no stated reason to cross.
Differentiation
The proof points are all much larger companies, so there is no reference customer…
4 of 15
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a…” Show full quote
“I'd need one case study from an 11-50 person company to actually believe the setup and cost work for us. If a competitor on the shortlist had a same-size customer story with a real number attached, that would beat this page”
Head of People Operations, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“I'd need a case study from a staffing/recruiting firm placing candidates at volume for external clients — something showing throughput on hundreds of reqs a week, agency-side workflows,…” Show full quote
“I'd need a case study from a staffing/recruiting firm placing candidates at volume for external clients — something showing throughput on hundreds of reqs a week, agency-side workflows, and how scores get communicated back to clients, not just an internal enterprise hiring its own headcount.”
HR Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 501-1000 employeessimulated “every named proof point — Australia Post, BOQ Group's "2,340 hours saved," dentsu's "75% reduction in attrition" — is a much bigger company than mine, and the G2…” Show full quote
“every named proof point — Australia Post, BOQ Group's "2,340 hours saved," dentsu's "75% reduction in attrition" — is a much bigger company than mine, and the G2 badges are all "Enterprise" tier”
Director of Talent Acquisition, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeessimulated
Value
The stated results are given without baselines or methodology, so respondents treat them…
3 of 15
“fewer interviews compared to what baseline, over what role types, and does that saving survive once you add in the time candidates spend on these job-simulation tasks upfront?”
Head of Recruitment, Human Resources · 201-500 employeessimulated See all 4 comments
“if the other tool on my shortlist has a published case study breaking down time-to-hire specifically, with before/after numbers and company size similar to mine”
Head of Recruitment, Human Resources · 201-500 employeessimulated “those look like they're doing the heavy lifting for the pitch but I'd need methodology, not just a company name attached to a stat”
Talent Acquisition Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeessimulated “the FAQ section drifts into generic explainer copy ("a job fit assessment is akin to peering through a window") that reads like SEO filler aimed at someone earlier…” Show full quote
“the FAQ section drifts into generic explainer copy ("a job fit assessment is akin to peering through a window") that reads like SEO filler aimed at someone earlier in their research than I am”
Talent Acquisition Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeessimulated
Relevance
The enterprise customer logos read as proof the product is not built for mid-market or…
8 of 15
“it reads like it's built for enterprise HR/TA teams with real hiring volume — logos like Australia Post, dentsu, BOQ Group — not obviously a scrappy 11-50 person…” Show full quote
“it reads like it's built for enterprise HR/TA teams with real hiring volume — logos like Australia Post, dentsu, BOQ Group — not obviously a scrappy 11-50 person SaaS company. Nothing on the page said "for smaller teams"”
Head of People Operations, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeessimulated See all 9 comments
“the page is written more for enterprise buyers than an 11-50 person agency — the logos (Australia Post, Lumen, Tennis Australia) and stats (2,340 hours at BOQ Group,…” Show full quote
“the page is written more for enterprise buyers than an 11-50 person agency — the logos (Australia Post, Lumen, Tennis Australia) and stats (2,340 hours at BOQ Group, a bank) all read big-company, not boutique staffing firm.”
Senior Talent Acquisition Manager, Staffing and Recruiting · 11-50 employeessimulated “It doesn't feel written for someone like me at a 51-200 person recruiting shop — there's no mention of agency or staffing use cases anywhere”
Head of Recruitment, Staffing and Recruiting · 51-200 employeessimulated “the customer logos (Australia Post, dentsu, BOQ, Tennis Australia) suggest big enterprise, and the "2,340 hours saved annually" stat sounds like a large operation with high-volume hiring, not…” Show full quote
“the customer logos (Australia Post, dentsu, BOQ, Tennis Australia) suggest big enterprise, and the "2,340 hours saved annually" stat sounds like a large operation with high-volume hiring, not obviously a 51-200 person HR company like mine”
Director of People Operations, Human Resources · 51-200 employeessimulated “Who they normally sell to is obvious from the tone and proof points: enterprise TA teams with the budget and headcount to run "Enterprise" G2 tiers and handle…” Show full quote
“Who they normally sell to is obvious from the tone and proof points: enterprise TA teams with the budget and headcount to run "Enterprise" G2 tiers and handle compliance reviews”
Director of People Operations, Staffing and Recruiting · 11-50 employeessimulated “feels like it's aimed at a broader HR generalist audience rather than someone with my narrow mandate”
Head of Recruitment, Human Resources · 201-500 employeessimulated “nothing on the page explicitly says "built for mid-market," so that's a gap I'd need a sales rep to close”
Director of Talent Acquisition, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeessimulated “The tone isn't written for someone like me. It's written for a TA director at a company doing thousands of hires a year, not a 51-200 person HR…” Show full quote
“The tone isn't written for someone like me. It's written for a TA director at a company doing thousands of hires a year, not a 51-200 person HR firm — there's nothing here that says "we work at your scale,"”
Director of People Operations, Human Resources · 51-200 employeessimulated “Who it's for is less explicit; there's no "for TA leaders at 200-2000 employee firms" segmentation”
Talent Acquisition Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeessimulated
Clarity
How the AI actually scores candidates is never explained
3 of 15
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data…” Show full quote
“I can't tell is the actual scoring mechanism — how does the AI grade a video response or presentation objectively, what's the model, and where's the accuracy/validity data behind "assessments are developed and validated by experts"?”
HR Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 501-1000 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“Phrases like "immersive question types," "conversational AI makes high-volume screening efficient," and "job fit assessment is akin to peering through a window" — that's marketing fluff dressed up…” Show full quote
“Phrases like "immersive question types," "conversational AI makes high-volume screening efficient," and "job fit assessment is akin to peering through a window" — that's marketing fluff dressed up as explanation, and it dodges the actual mechanics of how the AI grades or what "immersive" means in practice.”
Senior Talent Acquisition Manager, Staffing and Recruiting · 11-50 employeessimulated “Phrases like "immersive question types," "surfaces your top candidates," and "conversational AI makes screening efficient" are the vague marketing-speak that slowed me down — they sound nice but…” Show full quote
“Phrases like "immersive question types," "surfaces your top candidates," and "conversational AI makes screening efficient" are the vague marketing-speak that slowed me down — they sound nice but don't tell me the integration mechanics”
Director of Talent Acquisition, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeessimulated ATS integration is unclear, which breaks the time-to-hire argument
2 of 15
“What I can't yet tell is how it actually integrates with our existing ATS workflow”
Talent Acquisition Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeessimulated The hero line is too abstract to convey what the product does
1 of 15
“the hero line "Better talent starts with skills" is too abstract to tell me what's actually being sold, and I had to scroll down to "Skills Validation" and…” Show full quote
“the hero line "Better talent starts with skills" is too abstract to tell me what's actually being sold, and I had to scroll down to "Skills Validation" and "Efficient Hiring" sections before I understood”
Director of Talent Acquisition, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeessimulated The core mechanic — replacing resume screening with auto-scored job simulations — is…
3 of 15 · what worked
“candidates do job-simulation tasks (coding challenges, spreadsheet tests, video responses) and AI grades and ranks them, replacing resume screening”
Head of People Operations, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeessimulated See all 3 comments
“screening moves from resume/keyword triage to candidates doing actual role tasks that get auto-scored — the "instantly" scoring on spreadsheet tasks, coding challenges, presentations and video responses is…” Show full quote
“screening moves from resume/keyword triage to candidates doing actual role tasks that get auto-scored — the "instantly" scoring on spreadsheet tasks, coding challenges, presentations and video responses is the mechanism that would directly hit my stated problem”
Talent Acquisition Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeessimulated “The names that stuck with me were Australia Post and BOQ Group citing "2,340 hours saved annually," which is the kind of concrete detail that makes me think…” Show full quote
“The names that stuck with me were Australia Post and BOQ Group citing "2,340 hours saved annually," which is the kind of concrete detail that makes me think it's a real enterprise tool, not vaporware”
Director of Talent Acquisition, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeessimulated
Brand alignment
The page reads as a mid-market competitor without the enterprise-grade proof its tone…
2 of 15
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the…” Show full quote
“The tone itself is written for a generalist HR buyer, not for someone like me — it's smooth, benefit-led copy ("Never make another bad hire") that answers the "why" fast but goes soft exactly where I'd push, like "assessments are developed and validated by experts" with zero methodology attached.”
HR Leader, Staffing and Recruiting · 501-1000 employeessimulated See all 2 comments
“still feels like a company selling into mid-market/enterprise without quite having the enterprise-grade proof (predictive validity data) that would let me close the deal against Modern Hire or…” Show full quote
“still feels like a company selling into mid-market/enterprise without quite having the enterprise-grade proof (predictive validity data) that would let me close the deal against Modern Hire or HireVue”
Senior Talent Acquisition Manager, Software as a Service (SaaS) · 501-1000 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.
Senior Talent Acquisition ManagerStaffing and Recruiting · 11-50 employeesAPAC
Director of Talent AcquisitionSoftware as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeesUS
Head of RecruitmentHuman Resources · 201-500 employeesEU
HR LeaderStaffing and Recruiting · 501-1000 employeesAPAC
Head of People OperationsSoftware as a Service (SaaS) · 11-50 employeesUS
Director of People OperationsHuman Resources · 51-200 employeesEU
Talent Acquisition LeaderStaffing and Recruiting · 201-500 employeesAPAC
Senior Talent Acquisition ManagerSoftware as a Service (SaaS) · 501-1000 employeesUS
Director of Talent AcquisitionHuman Resources · 11-50 employeesEU
Head of RecruitmentStaffing and Recruiting · 51-200 employeesAPAC
HR LeaderSoftware as a Service (SaaS) · 201-500 employeesUS
Head of People OperationsHuman Resources · 501-1000 employeesEU
Director of People OperationsStaffing and Recruiting · 11-50 employeesAPAC
Talent Acquisition LeaderSoftware as a Service (SaaS) · 51-200 employeesUS
Senior Talent Acquisition ManagerHuman Resources · 201-500 employeesEU
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: 15 of 15, 3 without hesitation, 12 with reservations
- Relevance: 13 of 15, all with reservations
- Value: 11 of 15, all with reservations
- Differentiation: 7 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 mid-market reference customer beside the results strip.
- 2.Add baselines to the customer results strip.
- 3.Explain how AI grading scores video and presentation answers.
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 19 Oct 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.