Experimentation: The Source of Truth

There is a question that comes up in every product meeting, and it usually sounds something like this: "Do we think users want X or Y?"

Everyone around the table has an answer. The designer has a strong opinion based on user research from six months ago. The PM has a take based on competitor analysis. The CEO has a gut feeling from talking to two customers at a conference. And the engineer just wants to know which one to build so they can get started.

The right answer to "Do users want X or Y?" is almost always "Let's test it." But that is rarely what happens.

The problem with opinions

Opinions are not useless. Good product intuition, informed by experience and user empathy, is genuinely valuable. The problem is that even the best intuition is wrong a shocking amount of the time.

Google famously tested 41 shades of blue for their link color. Not because their designers could not pick a good blue, but because the difference between the "right" blue and the "close enough" blue was worth $200 million in annual revenue. Their designers' instincts would have picked a perfectly good blue. Testing found the one that made them $200 million more.

You are not Google. The stakes on any individual decision are probably lower. But the principle is the same: the gap between what you think will work and what actually works is often bigger than you expect, and the only way to close that gap is to test.

Why guessing is a losing strategy

When you make product decisions without testing, you are essentially making bets. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. And the problem is not that you lose sometimes. The problem is that when you lose, you usually do not know it.

You ship a change. Metrics move. But metrics move for a hundred reasons. Seasonality, marketing campaigns, competitor launches, app store featuring, even the day of the week. Without a controlled experiment, you cannot isolate the impact of your change from all the noise.

So you end up in a situation where you have shipped dozens of changes, your metrics have gone up and down, and you genuinely do not know which changes helped and which ones hurt. You are flying blind and calling it product development.

Experimentation as a system

The most effective product teams do not treat testing as a nice to have. They treat it as a system. Every significant change gets tested. Results are documented and shared. Learnings inform future hypotheses.

This sounds heavy and bureaucratic, but it does not have to be. A simple experiment can be as lightweight as: "We think moving the notification permission request from screen 2 to screen 4 will reduce drop off. Let's split traffic 50/50 for two weeks and see."

That is it. One hypothesis, one change, one measurement period. It does not require a data science team or a massive analytics platform. It requires the ability to show different experiences to different users and track the outcomes.

What experimentation reveals

Running experiments consistently does something beyond just improving individual metrics. It teaches you about your users in a way that no amount of survey data or user interviews can match.

Surveys tell you what users say they want. Experiments tell you what users actually do. And there is often a significant gap between those two things. Users will tell you they love a feature and then never use it. They will say they do not care about a certain screen and then bounce when you remove it.

Over time, this behavioral data builds into something incredibly valuable: a real, evidence based understanding of your user base. Not assumptions. Not personas. Not guesses. Actual observed behavior in controlled conditions.

Where most teams go wrong

The biggest mistake teams make with experimentation is not doing it at all. The second biggest mistake is testing the wrong things.

Changing a button color from blue to green is not going to meaningfully move your metrics. Testing a completely different flow, a different screen sequence, a different value proposition, or a different ask (permissions, sign up, purchase) at a different point in the journey? Those are the experiments that move the needle.

Start with your onboarding flow. It is the highest leverage part of your app because every single user goes through it. Test the number of screens. Test the order. Test whether asking for sign up before or after showing value changes your conversion. Test whether a personalization step at the beginning increases completion rates.

Making experimentation easy

The reason more teams do not experiment is not that they do not believe in it. It is that the infrastructure required has traditionally been expensive and complex to build. You need a way to split traffic, serve different experiences, track events, and analyze results. Building this in house is a real engineering investment.

But the landscape has changed. For paywalls, tools like RevenueCat and Superwall handle the experimentation layer. For onboarding, platforms like Noboarding let you build flow variants in a visual editor, split traffic, and see results in a built in analytics dashboard. You can set up and run an onboarding experiment in minutes, not weeks.

The tools are there. The math is clear. The question is not whether experimentation works. It has been proven over and over again, by companies of every size, in every industry. The question is whether you are going to adopt it as your source of truth, or keep guessing and hoping for the best.

Your users will tell you what they want. Not in emails or surveys, but in their behavior. All you have to do is run the experiment and listen.

Ready to optimize your onboarding?

Build, A/B test, and update your onboarding flow over the air. No app review required.