Proof Stacking: Case Studies, Testimonials, and “Show Your Work” Posts
Authority is built on receipts. This guide shows how to publish case posts that respect confidentiality, use testimonials without running afoul of guidelines, and share “work in public” updates that invite trust instead of hype.
Key Takeaways
- Use before/after + one surprise as your case structure.
- Ask for specific testimonials tied to outcomes.
- Publish work‑in‑progress with clear limits and caveats.
What Is Proof Stacking?
Definition: Proof stacking is publishing different types of evidence—metrics, artifacts, quotes—that reinforce each other over time.
When to use: Launches, renewals, hiring, or when you need credibility fast.
Quick steps: pick a case → get permission → write before/after → add one surprise → link an artifact.
Pros: Trust, shares, pipeline.
Cons: Requires client consent and careful wording.
Case Post Structure (copy‑ready)
Before: weekly actives flat at 42%.
Change: deleted a power feature, added a day‑3 check‑in.
After: weekly actives 57% and fewer support tickets.
Surprise: removing steps helped advanced users too.
Next: test shorter trial and one “aha” path per ICP.
Testimonial Requests That Work
- “Could you share one sentence on the outcome that mattered most?”
- “What changed for your team after the change landed?”
- “If a friend asked about working with us, what would you say?”
Show‑Your‑Work Posts (safe and useful)
- Teardown: three screenshots with captions of what changed.
- Experiment log: “Week 1 result, Week 2 plan, Guardrails.”
- Checklist share: five steps anyone can try today.
Show, don’t tell. Publish small, verifiable wins often; the stack becomes your brand. Save the case structure and testimonial prompts as templates in features.
Why Proof Beats Promises
People remember “what changed” more than “what we believe.” When you show the before/after, one surprise, and a tiny artifact, readers can reuse your learning in their context. That reusability drives saves and qualified DMs.
Permission first. If a client isn’t comfortable naming numbers, publish a “method + direction of change” version and state the constraint.
Ethics & Consent (non‑negotiable)
- Get written permission for names, numbers, and screenshots.
- Remove identifiers from visuals; blur emails, names, and IDs.
- Add a context line: sample size, period, and limits (“pilot, 3 stores, 4 weeks”).
Worked Rewrite (from hype to helpful)
Hype: “We 10×‑ed engagement with our new AI.”
Proof‑first:
Before: “Average session time 42s; completion 23% (Q2).”
Change: “Removed two steps; added success state.”
After: “Session 65s; completion 36% (Q3); fewer tickets.”
Surprise: “Deleting steps helped power users too.”
Testimonial Templates (ask the right way)
- Outcome: “After X, we achieved Y in Z time. The difference was ____.”
- Objection handled: “We hesitated because ____. What changed our mind was ____.”
- Specific praise: “The three things that stood out were ____, ____, ____.”
Safety Checklist (for screenshots)
- Use staging data or mask PII.
- Crop to the element being discussed.
- Add a one‑line caption explaining the decision.
Avoid cherry‑picking. If you ran three variants, say so and share why this one won. Credibility compounds when you share context.
Measurement That Matters
- Saves per case post
- DM mentions within 7 days
- Replies from ICP roles
- Warm intros attributed to the post
Asset Bank (keep it simple)
Maintain a private folder with: raw screenshots, redacted versions, CSV of before/after metrics, quotes with permissions, and the one‑page case outline. Publishing becomes assembly, not invention.
Save Proof Templates Publish your first case this week