EDITORIAL POLICY
How GrowthBrief Researches, Writes and Maintains Its Content
GrowthBrief exists to make email marketing, automation, deliverability and software decisions easier to understand. This policy explains the standards we aim to follow when researching, writing, reviewing and updating our content.
The Short Version
Our editorial goal is to put useful answers before affiliate clicks. We aim to separate facts from interpretation, verify time-sensitive product information when it matters, explain important trade-offs, avoid unsupported claims and make commercial relationships visible rather than allowing them to determine the answer.
OUR STANDARDS
Five Principles That Guide GrowthBrief Content
1. Accuracy before certainty
When a fact can change—such as pricing, plan limits, product capabilities or policies—we aim to verify it from a current primary or authoritative source and avoid presenting assumptions as settled facts.
2. Context before benchmarks
Marketing metrics are useful only in context. We try to explain what a number measures, what can distort it and which business question it can reasonably help answer.
3. Fit before hype
Software recommendations should begin with requirements, workflows and trade-offs—not popularity, affiliate economics or a universal “best” label.
4. Clear sourcing and attribution
When a statement depends on external information, we aim to rely on relevant sources and distinguish sourced facts from our own explanation, framework or judgment.
5. Useful answers before monetization
Commercial relationships may support the publication, but they should not be used to manufacture urgency, conceal meaningful drawbacks or turn every question into a product recommendation.
RESEARCH & VERIFICATION
How We Approach Research
The level of research should match the claim being made. A conceptual explanation may rely on established marketing knowledge, while a claim about current pricing, plan availability, product functionality or platform policy requires fresher verification.
Primary sources first when practical
For product-specific facts, we prefer official documentation, pricing pages, help centers, policy pages and other first-party material where appropriate.
Independent context when useful
External research can help identify user concerns, competing interpretations and practical trade-offs. We do not treat popularity or repeated claims as proof by themselves.
Uncertainty stays visible
If information cannot be verified confidently, we would rather qualify the statement, explain the limitation or leave it out than make the page sound more certain than the evidence allows.
CLAIMS & EXPERIENCE
What We Will Not Pretend to Know
Trust depends as much on what a publication refuses to claim as on what it publishes. GrowthBrief will not intentionally invent or imply credentials, customer results, proprietary data, interviews, product testing, hands-on experience or access that did not actually occur.
If an article is based on documentation, research and analysis rather than first-hand product testing, it should be presented that way.
Likewise, examples and frameworks may be used to explain a concept, but illustrative scenarios should not be presented as real client outcomes or measured case studies.
COMMERCIAL INDEPENDENCE
Affiliate Relationships Should Not Decide the Conclusion
GrowthBrief may earn compensation when readers use certain links. That relationship should be disclosed clearly and should not determine whether a product is included, excluded, praised or criticized.
What monetization can do
Affiliate revenue can help support the cost of publishing, maintaining and improving useful free content.
What it should not do
It should not erase disadvantages, create false scarcity, inflate ratings, manufacture personal experience or make an unsuitable product look like the default choice.
SOFTWARE CONTENT
How We Handle Reviews, Comparisons and Recommendations
Software content should help readers evaluate fit. We aim to define the decision criteria first, then compare relevant capabilities, limitations, operational requirements and costs against those criteria.
- We avoid calling a platform “best” without defining who or what it is best for.
- We distinguish documented product capabilities from our interpretation of their usefulness.
- We try to make meaningful limitations and trade-offs visible.
- Pricing and feature information can change, so readers should confirm current details with the provider before purchasing.
- We do not claim hands-on testing unless such testing actually took place.
AI & EDITORIAL TOOLS
Tools Can Assist the Work. They Do Not Lower the Standard.
GrowthBrief may use software and AI-assisted workflows for tasks such as research organization, drafting support, editing, structure or quality checks. The same editorial standards still apply: factual claims should be supportable, uncertainty should not be hidden, and generated wording should not be treated as evidence.
Using a tool does not justify invented experience, fabricated sources, unsupported statistics or publishing information we would not otherwise stand behind.
CORRECTIONS & UPDATES
Content Quality Is an Ongoing Process
When information changes
We may revise content when products, pricing, policies, terminology or our understanding of a topic materially changes.
When we find an error
We aim to correct material inaccuracies rather than preserve them simply because an article has already been published.
When readers flag something
Readers can contact GrowthBrief when they believe a factual error, missing disclosure or important piece of context needs review.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Questions About Our Editorial Standards?
If you spot an error, believe an important qualification is missing or have a question about how a GrowthBrief page was researched or presented, contact us. Useful criticism is part of maintaining a better publication.
Useful Answers. Visible Trade-Offs. Clearer Decisions.
That is the standard GrowthBrief is working toward across educational guides, software comparisons and decision-support resources.