the big issue I have with case studies/teardowns is that they are almost always totally naive. some armchair critic projects themselves into the complexities of another company's growth strategy and creates a ham-fisted post-hoc rationalisation for the things they did. but to quote from The Lords of Strategy (great book btw): "Did [the company] know that it was performing this alleged act of strategy?" naive case studies get gobbled up by junior people who don't know any better, but the decision-makers and inveterate marketers see straight through the charade. you can fix the problem by either doing proper, meaningful research (and actually talking to the people that made the decisions) or by letting data stand on its own feet ("they acquired X backlinks from these Y research reports"), and avoiding the temptation to layer on naive analysis as to their motivation or decision-making process. ~fin
David Hoos
6mo
I can appreciate this POV. That said, don’t you think they’re most often used more as a vehicle to convey the thought process of the person creating them? As a consumer, I can’t remember looking at tear downs or case studies as exhaustive.
Kate Meda
6mo
But how do you define a "naive" case study from a mature one? Ones with more data? I would be curious about that first. Second, I've found case studies helpful when they are tailored to specific KPIs, outcomes, use cases, industries, etc. For example, if I were a client in the automotive field, it would be helpful to see that X company helped X company with X problem. Obviously, every client problem depends on multiple factors, but I think it's helpful to see how the company collaborates to solve the problem.
Josh Gallant 🧭
6mo
For me it comes down to how it’s presented—even if you’re playing armchair quarterback and can’t or haven’t talked directly to someone involved. BAD ❌ Assumptions and blanket statements → Saying one thing happened because of another, when in reality that was just one of MANY variables at play. i.e. “This company reached X valuation because of Y tactic.” GOOD ✅ Assessments and realistic statements → Pointing out one variable that you as the “strategist” looking in believe made a big impact, but not positioning it as the SOLE reason why an outcome was achieved. i.e. “This $XX million company used Y tactic to grow” Also seems pretty well in line with what others have said here in the comments.
Most companies’ marketing strategy is “The Opinions of the Highest Ranking Executive with the Strongest Feelings on the Matter” That does tend to manifest itself as something recognizable on the outside regardless of whether they explicitly spell it out on the inside.
Mark Asher
6mo
I used to do copywriting rewrites but stopped as I realised it’s all surface level and I have no idea what their rationale is. No different to somebody screaming at football players going ‘he should’ve passed’. They don’t know the strategy or the bigger picture. Only what they see. I could’ve been right and my rewrite would work better or they could’ve built the page from their own data/research and it’s performing incredibly. Either way, how would I know?
Faizan Fahim
6mo
Reading your post reminded me of something i wrote... i focused on email marketing but i guess this works for all type of analysis... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/analysis-bias-email-marketing-faizan-fahim/
Hassan Ud-deen
6mo
It's like English classes at school about poetic devices being ingeniously planted by the author to create a billion metaphors for one thing. When in reality, we had no way of knowing if that was true. Dude/dudette probably saw a tree sway in the wind and put that in their writing. It made life easier for English teachers, so that's a positive I guess!
Dominic Collard
6mo
The main issue I find with case studies is persuading the subject of the case study that it is not a piece of marketing for them, but a piece of research for others.
Saba Malik
6mo
Case studies often miss real insights; genuine research and data-driven analysis reveal true strategies.
Brand and Content Marketing @ Supermove
6moI've done something similar. I was hired to do a research report on DTC advertising trends (despite having ZERO experience in DTC before this project), and so I acted as an armchair critic. I wasn't just showing the ads and the playbooks these companies were running. I was also giving my analysis of why they did it and why it works. In cases like these, would it be better to do a (poor) analysis like the one I did and you criticize here; or would it be better to just shut up and let the reader make of that as they will?