Dr Simon Jackson's Experimentation Posts That Stick

Dr Simon Jackson's Experimentation Posts That Stick

I clicked into Dr Simon Jackson's profile expecting the usual "ex-Meta" flex and a couple of vague growth takes.

Instead, I found a creator with 6,647 followers putting up a 105.00 Hero Score (which is spicy for that audience size), posting a very reasonable 1.7 times per week, and still managing to feel consistently useful.

So I started comparing him with two other strong creators: Jason Fairchild (8,716 followers, 103.00 Hero Score) and Michel Lieben 🧠 (63,987 followers, 103.00 Hero Score).

I wanted to understand what makes Simon's content work, and here's what I found after looking at the patterns and the positioning.

Here's what stood out:

• Simon wins with clarity + structure, not volume
• He builds trust by being precise, not precious (no "guru" vibes)
• He gets outsized engagement by speaking directly to practitioners who actually run experiments

---

Dr Simon Jackson's Performance Metrics

What's interesting is the numbers don't scream "celebrity creator" at all. They scream "high-signal specialist." The Hero Score of 105.00 next to 6,647 followers is the tell: people aren't just passively following, they're reacting like they're getting something practical out of it.

Key Performance Indicators

---

What Makes Dr Simon Jackson's Content Work

When you strip away the aesthetics, Simon's advantage is pretty simple: he takes messy experimentation reality and turns it into clean, skimmable mental models.

And he does it without talking down to you.

1. He teaches the "practitioner middle" (where most teams live)

So here's what I noticed first: Simon doesn't write for beginners who want inspiration, and he doesn't write only for statisticians who want proofs.

He writes for the person who's about to join a meeting and defend why a test isn't valid, why a metric is wrong, or why "data-driven" doesn't mean "whatever the dashboard says today." That reader exists in every product org. And they're usually tired.

Key Insight: Build posts for the person who has to explain the concept tomorrow, not the person who wants to admire it today.

This works because it hits a specific kind of pain: teams want to move fast, but they also want to avoid embarrassing decisions. Simon's content gives people language, structure, and confidence.

Strategy Breakdown:

2. He uses contrast to make ideas stick

Simon loves a clean contrast: less mature vs world-class, reactive vs structured, feel-good testing vs business-good testing.

It's not just a writing trick. It's cognitive relief. You stop trying to hold 12 variables in your head and instead choose between two frames.

And once you've got the frame, you can argue about details without losing the plot.

Comparison with Industry Standards:

3. He writes in a LinkedIn-native rhythm (lots of air)

This is the unsexy part that matters.

Simon uses short paragraphs, isolated emphasis lines, and clear section markers. It reads like a smart friend thinking out loud, not a whitepaper.

And because the posts are skimmable, they don't punish you for being busy.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: this format is also perfect for experimentation topics, because each section can mirror a decision step.

• The misconception
• The correction
• The "so what"
• The action

That sequence is basically how real teams decide.

4. He respects the reader with specificity (and a bit of humor)

A lot of creators try to win with certainty.

Simon wins with specificity.

He'll name the metric problem, the testing pitfall, or the org dynamic. And then he'll add a tiny human aside that makes it feel safe to engage. Not forced jokes. More like a quick wink.

That matters because people comment when they feel like the creator is both competent and normal.

---

Their Content Formula

If you wanted to explain Simon's formula to a friend, it would be:

A sharp opening.

A calm teardown.

A structured rebuild.

A question that invites practitioners to compare notes.

Content Structure Breakdown

The Hook Pattern

Simon tends to open with a line that makes you feel slightly called out (in a good way).

Template:

"Most teams think X is the goal. It's not."

A few hook examples in his style:

"If your experiment program optimises for wins, you're going to hate the outcome."

"Being data-driven doesn't mean being judgement-free."

"You can run more A/B tests and still learn less."

Why this works: it creates a clean gap between what you believe and what might be true.

And it doesn't require drama. It's just a strong claim.

The Body Structure

Simon usually builds like he's teaching, not performing.

He'll label sections, use simple transitions (First, Next, Finally), and isolate key lines like "This distinction matters." That line isolation is doing a lot of work. It's basically a highlighter.

Body Structure Analysis:

The CTA Approach

Simon doesn't end with "DM me" energy.

He usually ends with a question that invites comparison: "Have you seen this in your org?" or "How do you handle it?" That works because practitioners love to sanity check their reality.

Also: posting time.

The best-performing slot noted here is evenings around 8-9pm local time, and that matches the vibe of his content. It's "end of day, I'm reflecting on how work really works" content. People are winding down, scrolling, and they're more open to thoughtful posts than during the midday rush.

---

Side-by-side: Simon vs Jason vs Michel

Before I get too starry-eyed about Simon, the comparison is what makes the lessons pop.

All three creators are strong.

They just win in different ways.

Table 1: Audience size vs engagement efficiency

What surprised me: Michel's audience is nearly 10x Simon's, but the Hero Score is basically tied. That suggests Michel has figured out how to scale without turning into generic advice.

Table 2: Positioning and "why people follow"

If you want a simple mental model:

• Simon is the "teach me to think" creator.
• Jason is the "teach me to lead" creator.
• Michel is the "teach me the system" creator.

Table 3: Content mechanics (what likely drives comments)

---

What Simon does that the other two reinforce (in a good way)

I like looking at creators in threes because patterns get less fuzzy.

Here's the overlap I see across all three:

1. They have a job-to-be-done.

Simon helps you run experiments without fooling yourself.

Jason helps you lead and build as a CEO.

Michel helps you design and operate GTM systems.

Different topics, same clarity: you know what you get.

2. They don't post like they're filling a quota.

Simon's 1.7 posts per week is proof you can win without daily posting, as long as each post earns its space.

3. They pick a lane and keep driving.

People follow for consistency. Not just frequency.

---

3 Actionable Strategies You Can Use Today

1. Write for the meeting someone has tomorrow - Make your post something a reader can repeat to their team in one sentence.

2. Use contrast to teach faster - "Less mature teams do X. Strong teams do Y." It's easy to skim and hard to forget.

3. End with a practitioner question - Ask for real scenarios ("What do you do when...?") and you'll get real comments.

---

Key Takeaways

1. Hero Score tells a story - Simon's 105.00 with 6,647 followers signals tight relevance and trust.
2. Structure is a growth hack (without being a hack) - short paragraphs, clear sections, and isolated emphasis lines make complex topics readable.
3. Niche beats noise - Simon's focus on experimentation makes the right people lean in.

That's what I learned from studying their content. What do you think: do you prefer creators who teach principles (Simon), leadership (Jason), or systems (Michel)?

---

Meet the Creators

---

This analysis was generated by ViralBrain's AI content intelligence platform.