Editorial Policy

The editorial standards behind Returnonbehavior: how we source and check claims about why customers click, buy, stay and leave, and what product, growth and design teams can do about it, who writes here, when we correct or update a published piece, and how to raise a correction with the desk.

This is the editorial policy for Returnonbehavior (returnonbehavior.com) — the standards every piece we publish about why customers click, buy, stay and leave, and what product, growth and design teams can do about it is held to, written down so you can hold us to them too. It covers who writes here, how claims are sourced and checked, when we revise a published piece, and how to tell us we got something wrong.

Publisher
Returnonbehavior
Applies to
All content published at returnonbehavior.com
Last reviewed
Oct 30, 2026
In effect since
2026

  1. Scope and editorial independence

    This policy governs everything published at returnonbehavior.com: features, explainers, how-to guides, ranked lists, head-to-head comparisons and opinion, across Conversion, UX, Pricing, Retention and Analytics. Returnonbehavior is an independent publication written for Founders, product managers, marketers, and growth and UX teams who want careful, evidence-led writing on how customers actually behave. Editorial decisions — what we cover, who we assign it to, and what we conclude — are made by the editorial desk alone.

    Our stated editorial voice is deliberate and applies to every format on the site: patient, exact and skeptical of easy wins. We start from what customers actually did, show the evidence and its limits, name the trade-off, and end with something your team can try on Monday. Where a piece departs from straight reporting into analysis or opinion, it is labelled as such at the top rather than left for the reader to infer.

  2. Sourcing and evidence

    Every factual claim on Returnonbehavior traces back to something a reader can check: a primary document, a named release or filing, a published data set, or a person who was directly involved. We link to the primary source wherever one exists publicly, and we link to it rather than to another outlet's write-up of it.

    Where we are inferring rather than reporting, the sentence doing the inferring says so. Where a figure about why customers click, buy, stay and leave, and what product, growth and design teams can do about it is an estimate, we say whose estimate it is and what it is based on — Returnonbehavior does not launder a projection into a fact by dropping the source that made it.

    • Primary documents and first-party announcements take precedence over another outlet's write-up of them, on every beat we cover across Conversion, UX, Pricing, Retention and Analytics.
    • Anonymous sourcing appears in Returnonbehavior only where a named source would face real consequences, and the piece explains why the source is unnamed.
    • Vendor-supplied figures, benchmarks, and claims are attributed to the vendor, never presented as Returnonbehavior's own findings.
    • Where a topic in Conversion, UX, Pricing, Retention and Analytics is genuinely contested, the piece represents the disagreement rather than resolving it by omission.

  3. Bylines and authorship

    Every article on Returnonbehavior carries the name of the person who reported and wrote it. 6 writers currently file for this site, and each keeps a public profile listing their background, their beat, and everything they have published here. 3 of them publish relevant credentials or years of experience on that profile.

    Nothing on returnonbehavior.com is published under a house byline, a pen name, or an invented persona. If a piece was reported by more than one of our writers, all of them are credited on it.

  4. Corrections and updates

    When we get something wrong, we fix it in place and note the correction on the article itself — what changed, and when. We do not quietly edit a mistake out of the record, and we do not delete a published piece to make an error disappear.

    Substantive revisions — new facts, a changed conclusion, a materially rewritten section — are stamped with an updated date on the article. Routine copy-editing that does not change meaning is not stamped.

    Correction
    A published statement of fact was wrong. Returnonbehavior fixes the error in the text and adds a dated note on the article saying what it was.
    Update
    The facts changed after publication, or new reporting was added — common on a fast beat like Conversion, UX, Pricing, Retention and Analytics. The article carries an updated date and the new material is marked in context.
    Clarification
    Nothing was factually wrong, but the wording was open to a reading we did not intend. We tighten the wording and note the change on the piece.
    Retraction
    The central claim of a piece does not hold. It stays online at returnonbehavior.com, clearly marked as retracted, and the notice explains why — the URL is never quietly removed.

  5. Use of AI tools

    AI tools may be used at Returnonbehavior for research assistance, transcription, and copy suggestions. They are not used to generate published articles, and no piece is published without a named human writer who has read every claim in it and stands behind it.

    Responsibility for accuracy sits with the bylined writer and the Returnonbehavior desk, not with a tool. A claim about why customers click, buy, stay and leave, and what product, growth and design teams can do about it that originated from an AI tool is worth exactly as much as the primary source we then found to support it — and if we could not find one, the claim does not run.

  6. Commercial relationships

    Some links may be sponsored. Our editors choose what we cover, and no software vendor, agency or platform pays to shape a story or a recommendation.

    Returnonbehavior carries no sponsored placements or affiliate links at present. If that changes, every such link will be marked where it appears and this policy will be updated before the first one runs.

    Returnonbehavior's full commercial disclosure — the standing notice covering sponsored placements and affiliate relationships — is published separately and linked at the foot of this page.

  7. Reader redress

    If you believe something Returnonbehavior published is wrong, unfair, or missing context that changes its meaning, tell us. Point to the specific claim and, where you can, the source that contradicts it — that is the fastest route to a correction.

    Every complaint about accuracy reaches the Returnonbehavior editorial desk and is read. Where a claim is wrong, we correct it and say so on the article. Where we think it stands, we will tell you why rather than leaving the message unanswered.

Our standing commitments

  1. We report before we opine

    Analysis on Returnonbehavior starts from something checkable — a filing, a release, a data set, a conversation with someone who was in the room — and says which it is.

  2. We correct in public

    Mistakes are fixed on the page that carried them, dated and described, rather than edited away. The Returnonbehavior archive stays honest about its own history.

  3. Coverage is never for sale

    No commercial relationship determines what we cover in Conversion, UX, Pricing, Retention and Analytics or what we conclude about it, and every paid placement is marked where a reader meets it.

  4. We write for the person doing the work

    This site is written for Founders, product managers, marketers, and growth and UX teams who want careful, evidence-led writing on how customers actually behave — not for a search engine, and not for an industry insider looking to be flattered.

Raise a correction or a concern

Corrections, factual disputes, and questions about how a specific piece of Returnonbehavior coverage was reported all reach the editorial desk. We read everything and act on what is checkable. Name the article and the claim, and we will come back to you.