Start with the reader
Define the task or decision a piece helps with.
Growth Virality aims to help marketers and founders understand a decision before making it. These principles guide new and revised work. Older archive articles may not reflect every current standard.
Read the articlesReaders should be able to see what a piece is based on, who it may help, and where its advice has limits.
Define the task or decision a piece helps with.
Attribute data, examples, and claims. Separate observation from opinion.
Say when an approach or tool may help and when it may not.
Recheck time-sensitive claims when a piece is revised.
Articles identify their author. A second editor, including Jonathan Saeidian when assigned, receives a visible review credit only after recording the article’s review criteria, source links, fact-check date, commercial disclosure, and dated signoff. Changes to the article or review record clear the approval until the editor signs off again. Our older agency comparisons carry an archive notice until they complete this process.
Editorial review here is a practitioner check of claims and reasoning, not academic peer review. A review credit is specific to the article; it should never be inferred from a reviewer’s general role.
Growth Virality publishes editorial content alongside resource, directory, community, and partnership offerings. A tool listing is a starting point for research, not an endorsement. When a recommendation involves sponsorship, an affiliate link, a referral arrangement, or another material relationship, that connection should be disclosed near the recommendation. Payment should not determine an editorial conclusion.
Agency directory labels and certificates have their own scope and criteria. Read the agency editorial standards →
If you find a factual error, include the page URL, the specific claim, and a source for the correction. Use the general contact channel listed in our Terms & Conditions. We aim to review documented corrections and update the page when warranted.