Month 2 Execution · Minimum Viable Experiments (MVEs) ↘

Test Small Ideas. Keep What Works. Scale the Winners.

Many companies grow on one channel until it stalls. Instead of betting $50K on a slow campaign and hoping it works, Minimum Viable Experiments (MVEs) apply agile MVP thinking to growth: rank ideas with the ICE Score and run small, fast 2–4 week tests that each answer one clear question from your customer data.

Let’s Chat → ← Back to Homepage
Hand-drawn portrait of Kevin Nakao by Pravalika: Turns Ideas Into Growth, Go-To-Market Wizard
Rule 1
Start From Customer Data
What buyers click, read, search & buy points to the ideas worth testing.
Rule 2
Change One Thing
Same offer, copy & budget; only the single variable being tested moves.
Rule 3
Set Decision Rule Up Front
Decide before launch what result means scale, change, or stop.
Rule 4
Measure on Sales, Not Clicks
Track to sales meetings, purchases, or renewals with holdout groups.
Rule 5
Scale Winners, Stop Losers
Document what worked into repeatable SOPs and scale the winners.
How Tests Are Ranked · Priority Scoring

The ICE Matrix

Every idea gets an ICE score before it gets budget. ICE stands for Impact, Confidence, and Effort. The highest score runs first—dividing by effort means a quick test with good odds beats a slow, expensive bet with the same upside.

Prioritization Formula
ICE Score = (Impact × Confidence %) ÷ Effort
★ One Rule Overrides the Score: Fix Measurement First
A test can’t be judged on numbers known to be wrong, so tracking and attribution fixes always run before any test they would measure.
1. Impact (Scored 1 to 3)
The expected lift in sales if the idea works. Scored 1 to 3, where 3 is high revenue impact.
2. Confidence % (0% to 100%)
The chance, as a percentage, that it delivers that impact, based on the customer evidence behind it.
3. Effort (Scored 1 to 3)
The time and cost required to run the test. Scored 1 to 3, where 3 is the most work.
Example From a Pricing & Conversion Review (Idea)
Impact (1 to 3)
Confidence %
Effort (1 to 3)
ICE Score
1. Raise the price 30%; customers will pay moreRun First · High Upside, Low Effort
3
70%
1
2.1
2. Offer one price tier, based on devices, to remove choice overloadRun Second · High Confidence Packaging Simplification
2
80%
1
1.6
3. Make sign-up 100% self-service to reduce frictionRun Later · Requires Higher Engineering Effort
2
70%
2
0.7
Six Real-World Growth Experiments · Tagged by Context

Each Test Answered a Single Question

Some of these experiments were run in-house while I was an executive employee; others were run for REVgtm clients. Every single one isolated a hidden lever and showed where to put budget next.

Experiment 1 · EMPLOYER TINYpulse (Acq. by WebMD)
22 New Customers
01. Earned Press Without an Agency (From the First Press Hit)
Context: TINYpulse (acquired by WebMD), employee-engagement software.
Question: Can a company with no budget for a PR agency earn press that drives leads and sales?
Test: Built PR in-house instead, with advice from a board advisor. Hired strong writers straight out of college, screened with a writing test, and trained them to build reporter relationships and send targeted pitches. Ran the team like a sales team.
Result: The first press hit drove over 40 trials and 22 new customers. Scaled to 3 full-time PR staff in-house and earned 150+ press hits (Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fast Company, Bloomberg, Chicago Tribune, Wired).
Lever: In-House PR Team Run Like Sales Area: Public Relations
Experiment 2 · REVGTM CLIENT Same Video Asset
4× Traffic & Leads
02. Workplace Video on TikTok and YouTube vs. LinkedIn
Context: Online training program on how to do program management.
Question: Which video platform drives the most traffic and leads for a professional training program?
Test: Built short educational videos and tested the exact same videos across TikTok, YouTube, and LinkedIn.
Result: The core audience used YouTube more, but TikTok had a gap in workplace content, and that is where the videos took off. The same video drew 4× the traffic and leads on TikTok as on LinkedIn, driving program sales and higher-paying speaking engagements.
Lever: Workplace Content Gap on TikTok Area: Video Channels
Experiment 3 · REVGTM CLIENT Live in 3d · Signal in 10d
40% Lower Cost
03. Reaching Business Buyers on Meta, Not LinkedIn
Context: Pre-launch financial data company.
Question: Can we reach business buyers at a lower cost than LinkedIn?
Test: Launched Meta ads aimed at the same business buyers, with original ads and a landing page with full tracking. Messaging drew directly on 20+ customer interviews and improved audience match rates.
Result: Live in 3 days. Go-forward signal in 10 days. 40% lower cost to reach the exact same business buyers than LinkedIn.
Lever: Meta B2B Match-Rate Optimization Area: Channel Test
Experiment 4 · REVGTM CLIENT 12× Cheaper Meetings
$5.83 / Meeting
04. Three LinkedIn Plays on One Scorecard
Context: Business-to-business client.
Question: Which LinkedIn play books sales meetings at the lowest cost?
Test: Compared a 1:1 Automation Tool, Lead Gen Form ads, and Spotlight ads on cost per sales meeting.
1:1 Automation Tool (24 mtgs)$5.83 / mtg
Lead Gen Form Ads (35 mtgs)$18.65 / mtg
Spotlight Ads (16 mtgs est.)$70.44 / mtg
Lever: Lowest Cost Per Sales Meeting Area: B2B Pipeline
Experiment 5 · REVGTM CLIENT 480,455 Checkout Visitors
3.44× Purchase Rate
05. The Hidden Checkout Price-Comparison Lever
Context: Online checkout across 480,455 checkout visitors.
Question: Which checkout elements actually lead to a completed purchase?
Test: Matched each clicked element on the checkout page to its actual purchase rate against a 13.79% baseline.
Result: The most-clicked element bought at 13.19% (just under baseline). A hidden price comparison, opened by 2,146 visitors, bought at 47.44%, 3.44× baseline.
Lever: Price Comparison Buyers Convert Best Area: Checkout Conversion
Experiment 6 · REVGTM CLIENT AI Audience Match
15× CAC Room
06. Spend More on the Right Customers (LTV Tiers)
Context: Global e-commerce retailer setting all spend to one average $11.80 CPA and one average LTV.
Question: Are we underspending to win our most valuable customers?
Test: Split customers into 3 segments by value (Standard, High-Value, Elite) and built an exact-match audience using AI to append data for a higher match rate.
Result: A High-Value customer was worth 5.7× a Standard one (8× room on acquisition cost). Elite customers had 15× room on acquisition cost.
Lever: Headroom to Bid More for Elite Buyers Area: Segmentation & Paid Search
At a Glance & Sprint Cadence

Each Test Pointed Budget to a Lever Already There

This is not one and done. Many of these wins took sustained iteration and tweaking to find, and more to keep working as they scaled. The decision in Week 4 starts the first round of building, not the finish.

Experiment
Lever Found
Area
1. Earned press without an agency
An in-house PR team run like a sales team (22 customers from 1st hit; 150+ hits)
Public Relations
2. Workplace video on TikTok & YouTube
A gap in workplace content on TikTok (4× traffic & leads vs. LinkedIn)
Video
3. Business buyers on Meta, not LinkedIn
Meta reached the same business buyers at 40% lower cost by improving match rate
Channel Test
4. Three LinkedIn plays
Lowest cost per sales meeting ($5.83 via 1:1 Automation vs. $70.44 Spotlight)
B2B Pipeline
5. Hidden checkout lever
Price comparison buyers convert best (47.44% purchase rate = 3.44× baseline)
Conversion
6. Spend more on the right customers
Room to pay 8× more for High-Value & 15× more for Elite customers
Segmentation & Paid Search
Week 1
Tracking & Data Trust
Inspect GA4, CRM attribution, and measurement accuracy so no test is judged on broken numbers.
Week 2
Customer & Funnel Research
Review sales data, checkout heatmaps, and customer voice to surface candidate growth ideas.
Week 3
Score Ideas in ICE Matrix
Score every growth bet by Impact × Confidence % ÷ Effort and share the ranked backlog.
Week 4
Set Decision Rules & Build
Agree on the top tests, pre-commit the scale/stop rule for each, and launch Round 1.
What Clients Say · Client Testimonials

Fast tests, quick wins, a repeatable process.

★★★★★ · Inbound Campaign in <1 Hour

“I have worked with REVgtm & Kevin twice now. They move fast and get quick wins. We put together an inbound campaign in under 1 hour that drove high-quality leads for us. Being able to test quickly and build a repeatable process has been the key to helping me go from start-up to scale-up.”

David Niu David Niu · Founder & CEO, TINYpulse & BuddiesHR
★★★★★ · Contract Extended for Performance

“Kevin has become essential to our team. He quickly understood our unique product and customer base, bringing smart ideas to the table that he executes flawlessly. His work has delivered measurable results and helped us handle increased site traffic. Kevin’s self-sufficient approach and innovative thinking have made our entire team better. We’re extending his contract based on his exceptional performance. Highly recommended!”

RM Rachel Mooneyhan · Director
★★★★★ · SEO to LP to Google Ads A/B in 6 Weeks

“You can trust REVgtm to quickly and nimbly drive growth. They went from SEO analysis to landing page design to A/B testing with Google Ads within 6 weeks, and delivered cost-effective qualified leads.”

Laura Troyani Laura Troyani · Founder & Principal, Plan Beyond
About Me · Kevin Nakao, REVgtm

Analytics, strategy, and hands-on execution from one operator.

I’m Kevin Nakao, and I run REVgtm myself. I have over 30 years in sales, marketing, and customer success, growing recurring and subscription revenue lines from zero to a combined $500 million. I built sales and marketing engines through IPO at Spire Global and Remitly, and drove double-digit growth at AT&T Wireless, TINYpulse, RealNetworks, and Viacom. I earned a BA in Philosophy from Whitman College and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Ready to test your growth drivers?