GrowthBook

Fyxer retests experiments that failed last year. And they keep winning. This sounds counterintuitive. If a test lost, why run it again? Because your product changes. Your customers change. Other experiments change the environment that caused the original test to fail. An experiment that lost six months ago was tested against a different user base, a different product, different competitive context. The conditions that made it fail may not exist anymore. Kameron Tanseli at Fyxer has seen this repeatedly — a test that failed comes back to the queue, gets re-run, and wins. Not because the idea was wrong. Because the timing was. This changes how you should think about your backlog of failed experiments. Most teams treat it as a graveyard. Fyxer treats it as a library. Every failed test is a hypothesis that was right or wrong in a specific context at a specific moment in time. As your product matures and your user base shifts, the whole library becomes worth revisiting. This is one of the less obvious compounding advantages of high-velocity experimentation — the more experiments you run, the more context you have for why things failed, and the better your instincts become about when to retry them. High-velocity testing isn't just about finding wins faster. It's about building a learning system that improves with every experiment you run — including the ones that fail. Have you ever retested a failed experiment and been surprised by the result? 🎙️ Full episode + case study in the first comment 👇 #ABTesting #CRO #GrowthEngineering #Experimentation #ProductGrowth