How to read this table:
Raw CPL shows volume efficiency. Form Qual and ICP Match are automated quality signals from Mailchimp (30d window).
The Quadrant combines them: REAL WINNER = scale it, TRAP = form over-counts quality, KILL CANDIDATE = wrong audience.
Quality CPL = Spend / ICP Matches -- the true cost per right person.
Jake's 4-Tier Scoring (Mar 1-12, 2026):
Jake hand-scored every subscriber with first-party data.
Excellent = high-level ICP within health system.
Good = 1-2 criteria right, or all 3 but low level.
Target = Excellent + Good -- subscribers Jake can sell to advertisers.
1 Target Rate by Newsletter (Excellent + Good)
TFM vs GL Target Rate JAKE 4-TIER
2 Tier Distribution
TFM Tier Distribution (n=206) JAKE 4-TIER
GL Tier Distribution (n=145) JAKE 4-TIER
3 Full Scoring Breakdown
4-Tier Breakdown (Mar 1-12, 351 total scored) JAKE 4-TIER
Newsletter ▲
Agency ▲
Scored ▲
Excellent ▲
Good ▲
Medium ▲
Bad ▲
Target (E+G) ▲
Target Rate ▲
4 Example Titles by Tier (TFM)
What Excellent and Good looks like JAKE 4-TIER
CW Excellent
Surgeon at ICM
Cardiologist (x3)
MD at Northwestern Medicine
Radiologist at Brooke Army MC
IW Excellent
Radiologist (x7)
Manager Radiology at Mt Sinai
Chief Radiographer at Pulse & Echo
Imaging Director at Bon Secours
2-Tier vs 4-Tier: Different methods produce different winners.
The 2-tier scoring (Good/Bad binary) merges Medium into Good -- which benefits GL since GL had many Medium-tier subs.
Under 4-tier, TFM dominates CW (5.5x) and IW (6.9x). Under 2-tier, GL appears to win.
Key structural differences: date range, tier definitions, and ProvOrg inclusion.
1 2-Tier Good Rate Comparison
Good Rate: TFM vs GL JAKE 2-TIER
2 2-Tier Scoring Detail
2-Tier Breakdown (March 23 Analysis) JAKE 2-TIER
Newsletter
Agency
Good
Bad
ProvOrg w/o 1P
Total Scored
Good Rate
Good+ProvOrg Rate
IW Imaging Wire
TFM
41
14
23
55
74.5%
82.1%
IW Imaging Wire
GL
42
6
22
48
87.5%
91.4%
CW Cardiac Wire
TFM
59
30
14
89
66.3%
70.9%
CW Cardiac Wire
GL
47
10
23
57
82.5%
87.5%
3 Methodology Comparison: 4-Tier vs 2-Tier
Why the methods disagree ANALYSIS
Dimension
4-Tier Scoring
2-Tier (Good/Bad + ProvOrg)
Date Range
Mar 1-12
IW: Mar 1+ / CW: Mar 12+
Tiers
Excellent / Good / Medium / Bad
Good / Bad (binary)
Target =
Excellent + Good only
Good (Medium absorbed into Good)
ProvOrg Included?
No
Yes
CW Winner
TFM (5.5x advantage)
GL (82.5% vs 66.3%)
IW Winner
TFM (6.9x advantage)
GL (87.5% vs 74.5%)
DHW Winner
Tie (42.3% vs 40.6%)
Not scored
4 Title Composition Ratios
CW Nurse:Physician Ratio MAILCHIMP
IW Nurse:Physician Ratio MAILCHIMP
Quality CPL = Spend / ICP Matches.
This is the true cost per right person -- the metric that matters for Jake. Lower = better.
Action recommendations: SCALE (Quality CPL is efficient + volume exists), WATCH (promising but low sample), KILL (poor quality at meaningful spend).