Cardiac Wire
Spend$1,124
Subs423
GOOD55
Quality Rate13.0%
CPQL$20.43
Raw CPL$2.66
Imaging Wire
Spend$1,226
Subs113
GOOD24
Quality Rate21.2%
CPQL$51.08
Raw CPL$10.85
Digital Health Wire
Spend$1,243
Subs322
GOOD86
Quality Rate26.7%
CPQL$14.46
Raw CPL$3.86
CW Cardiac Wire — Creative Performance
CreativeSpendSubsCPLGOODRateCPQLSignal
DCT_118 Text Call out $619250$2.48 3212.8% $19.34 HOLD
DCT_103 Confession $274119$2.30 1310.9% $21.10 HOLD
DCT_112 EndangerPatient $7011$6.37 327.3% $23.36 TEST
DCT_117 Old vs New $8915$5.93 320.0% $29.66 TEST
DCT_101 Reasons Why $7218$3.97 15.6% $71.54 KILL
IW Imaging Wire — Creative Performance
CreativeSpendSubsCPLGOODRateCPQLSignal
DCT_119 Stay Current $28924$12.04 833.3% $36.11 HOLD
DCT_103 Confession $59073$8.08 1115.1% $53.62 REDUCE
DCT_114 ReplaceJournals $27413$21.04 538.5% $54.71 REDUCE
DCT_120 Information Overload $743$24.57 00.0% — KILL
DHW Digital Health Wire — Creative Performance
CreativeSpendSubsCPLGOODRateCPQLSignal
DCT_123 If you, BUT $962292$3.29 7927.1% $12.18 SCALE
DCT_121 Newspaper $736$12.23 350.0% $24.46 TEST
DCT_122 Make Better Decisions $586$9.65 233.3% $28.94 TEST
DCT_115 AppleNotes $665$13.29 240.0% $33.23 TEST
DCT_104 Life hack $8413$6.45 00.0% — KILL
Key Insights — L14D
DCT_123 "If you, BUT" is the standout. $12.18 CPQL on DHW with 292 subs and 27% quality rate. This is the only creative at scale that's hitting the sub-$15 CPQL target. Iterate this angle for CW and IW.
Imaging Wire is the problem child. Blended CPQL is $51.08 — 3.5x worse than DHW. DCT_103 Confession has fatigued on IW (quality dropped from 33%+ all-time to 15% L14D). DCT_119 has the best IW rate (33%) but CPL is too high at $12.
Cardiac Wire quality is slipping. DCT_118 was the hero creative (49% quality W11) but has dropped to 12.8% in L14D. It's still the cheapest CW option at $19.34 CPQL, but the trend is down. New CW creative is urgent.
DCT_101 Reasons Why and DCT_120 Information Overload should be killed. Both have near-zero quality rates and CPQLs above $70.
DHW has the strongest creative bench. DCT_121 Newspaper (50% quality), DCT_115 AppleNotes (40%), and DCT_122 (33%) all have high quality rates but need more spend to validate CPQL at scale.
Data notes: Subs = confirmed Mailchimp subscribers with GOOD/EXCLUDE scoring applied. CPL = Spend ÷ Mailchimp subs (not Meta leads — will be higher than Ads Manager). CPQL = Spend ÷ GOOD subs. Quality Rate = GOOD ÷ Total subs. Cross-signups excluded. Archived/cleaned subs excluded. Signal thresholds: SCALE (CPQL < $15 + 20+ GOOD), HOLD ($15–25 CPQL or trending stable), TEST (< 15 GOOD, still evaluating), REDUCE ($25–50 CPQL with 10+ GOOD), KILL (0 GOOD or CPQL > $50).
TFM Total L14D
Spend$3,594
Subs858
GOOD165
Blended Quality19.2%
Blended CPQL$21.78
Growletter Total L14D
Spend$3,496
Subs703
GOOD177
Blended Quality25.2%
Blended CPQL$19.75
L14D Delta
CPQL GapTFM +$2.03
Quality GapTFM −6.0pts
Volume GapTFM +155 subs
TFM WinsIW (tied)
GL WinsCW, DHW
CW Cardiac Wire — TFM vs Growletter
TFM TFM
Spend$1,124
Subs423
GOOD55 (13.0%)
CPL$2.66
CPQL$20.43
Growletter GL
Spend$1,274
Subs400
GOOD105 (26.2%)
CPL$3.18
CPQL$12.13
GL is crushing CW right now. $12.13 vs $20.43 CPQL. GL's quality rate (26.2%) is 2x TFM's (13.0%). TFM's advantage is cheaper CPL ($2.66 vs $3.18) but the quality gap erases it. CW needs new creative — DCT_118 has fatigued.
IW Imaging Wire — TFM vs Growletter
TFM TFM
Spend$1,226
Subs113
GOOD24 (21.2%)
CPL$10.85
CPQL$51.08
Growletter GL
Spend$1,191
Subs80
GOOD23 (28.8%)
CPL$14.89
CPQL$51.79
GL CreativeSpendSubsGOODRateCPQL
gl_lead_broad_ugc $51625 1144.0% $46.95
gl_lead_broad_03/20_reset $41737 821.6% $52.18
broad_original_lead $21315 320.0% $70.93
IW is a dead heat — both agencies are struggling. TFM $51.08 vs GL $51.79 CPQL. IW is the hardest newsletter (radiologists are a tiny, expensive audience). GL's UGC creative has 44% quality but can't get volume. Neither agency has a winner here — this is the newsletter where new creative matters most.
DHW Digital Health Wire — TFM vs Growletter
TFM TFM
Spend$1,243
Subs322
GOOD86 (26.7%)
CPL$3.86
CPQL$14.46
Growletter GL
Spend$1,032
Subs223
GOOD49 (22.0%)
CPL$4.63
CPQL$21.07
GL CreativeSpendSubsGOODRateCPQL
broad_original_lead_11-18 $32769 1724.6% $19.22
broad_lead_video $705154 3220.8% $22.02
TFM wins DHW convincingly. $14.46 vs $21.07 CPQL. DCT_123 "If you, BUT" is carrying this — 79 GOOD subs at 27% quality rate vs GL's best creative at 24.6%. TFM also has better volume (322 vs 223 subs) at a lower CPL ($3.86 vs $4.63). DHW is where TFM's creative advantage is clearest.
Growletter Strategic Insights
GL's CW dominance comes from one ad set. "interest_jobs_original_lead" runs a single video ad (lifehack_jobroles_cw) that drives all 400 CW subs. If this creative fatigues, GL has zero CW bench. TFM has 5 active CW creatives — broader but weaker.
GL's IW UGC approach is quality-rich but volume-poor. 44% quality rate on gl_lead_broad_ugc but only 25 subs in 14 days. The 03/20 reset campaign is their volume play (37 subs) but quality is mediocre (21.6%). Neither is a true winner.
GL recently launched new static creatives on DHW. "workinhospital-aipilots" is their new hero ($518 spend, 217 leads in broad_lead_video). They also duplicated it into broad_original_lead_11-18 ($20 spend). This is GL testing a new creative across adsets — worth monitoring.
Net takeaway: GL leads CW by a wide margin, IW is tied (both bad), TFM leads DHW. The opportunity is CW — if TFM can develop a CW creative with 20%+ quality rate, the gap closes fast. The "If you, BUT" hook that works on DHW should be tested on CW.
Data notes: Spend is live from Pipeboard (Mar 17–30). Subscriber counts and scoring are from Mailchimp with GOOD/EXCLUDE applied. GL subscriber counts come from their Mailchimp segments — confirmed subs only. Cross-signups excluded (subs counted only on the newsletter their ad targeted). GL spend covers all active adsets; some GL adsets have multiple ads rolled up. CPL = Spend ÷ Mailchimp subs. CPQL = Spend ÷ GOOD subs. Archived/cleaned subs are not included.