ML Interview Q Series: How would you determine if the email redesign caused the conversion rate increase from 40% to 43%?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Investigating causality in a setting where multiple external factors could be in play typically requires a structured approach to separate correlation from true cause-and-effect. Below are key strategies and considerations:

1. Establishing a Proper Control Group or Baseline

A crucial step is to identify or create a comparison group that did not receive the redesigned email flow. If historical data is available for users who have gone through the old email journey around the same time period, that can serve as an internal baseline. However, even historical baselines can be confounded by trends and seasonality, so you would ideally want a parallel control group (e.g., a randomized set of new users who still receive the old email sequence) running at the same time as the redesigned journey.

2. A/B Testing with Randomized Assignment

In many E-commerce companies, you might set up an A/B test to allocate half of new users to the old email journey and half to the redesigned journey. This randomized approach ensures that confounding factors are evenly distributed between the two groups. After a sufficient data collection period (depending on required statistical power), you can compare conversion rates in both groups.

3. Difference-in-Differences Approach

If you want to analyze changes over time and you already have a control group or some form of pre-and-post data, a difference-in-differences (DiD) method is useful to isolate the effect of the email redesign from underlying trends. You measure before-and-after changes for both treatment and control groups, then subtract the differences.

Here, Conversion_treatment,before is the average conversion rate for users who experienced the new email flow prior to its redesign. Conversion_treatment,after is the average conversion rate for those same treatment users after the redesign. Conversion_control,before is the average conversion rate for the control group prior to the redesign, while Conversion_control,after is the conversion rate for the control group over a comparable time period. By looking at both groups over the same time frame, DiD helps control for external factors (e.g., seasonality).

4. Time-Series Analysis

If you lack a randomized control group or cannot rerun the old campaign in parallel, you can look at time-series data for patterns like:

• Seasonality: Conversion rates might systematically rise or fall at specific times of the year (holidays, weekends, payday cycles). • Trends: A longer-term increase or decrease unrelated to the redesign (e.g., general brand growth or decline).

You would attempt to isolate the effect of the new email flow by fitting a time-series model (like ARIMA or Prophet in Python) with known external regressors (marketing spend, special promotions, competitor pricing, etc.). Sudden deviations from the model’s forecast can indicate a possible causal impact from the redesign, but you must carefully account for other events that coincide with the redesign.

5. Segment Analysis

Breaking down the user base into segments can reveal whether certain types of users (e.g., specific geographies or purchase frequencies) are disproportionately influenced by the new email sequence. If you find a uniform improvement across all segments, that might strengthen the evidence that the redesign caused the lift. If the improvement is localized to a certain demographic, external factors related to that demographic might instead be at play.

6. Statistical Significance and Confidence Intervals

Regardless of the method used, always compute confidence intervals around your estimated conversion rate changes. A difference might appear between groups, but if the interval is wide and overlaps zero (meaning no definitive effect), then the result might not be statistically robust.

7. Investigating Lagged Effects

Sometimes the impact of an email campaign is not immediate. Observing how conversion rates evolve over multiple weeks after the redesign is important. If conversion rates spike, then normalize, it might be a short-lived effect tied to another event rather than the new emails.

8. Check for Concurrent Marketing Activities

Corroborate the timing of other marketing campaigns, referral programs, or discount offers. An overlap with an external campaign could make it look like the email redesign was driving conversions when, in reality, a promotional event was the true driver.

9. Practical Example in Python

Below is a brief snippet showing how you might conduct a difference-in-differences style analysis with pandas if you have data for treatment and control groups across two time periods (before/after). This is a simplified illustration:

import pandas as pd

# Suppose df has columns:
# 'group' with values 'treatment' or 'control'
# 'period' with values 'before' or 'after'
# 'conversion_rate' with average conversion rates

df_pivot = df.pivot_table(index='group', columns='period', values='conversion_rate')
# df_pivot might look like:
#               before  after
# treatment       0.40   0.43
# control         0.42   0.44

treatment_diff = df_pivot.loc['treatment', 'after'] - df_pivot.loc['treatment', 'before']
control_diff = df_pivot.loc['control', 'after'] - df_pivot.loc['control', 'before']

did_estimate = treatment_diff - control_diff
print("Difference-in-Differences Estimate:", did_estimate)

Potential Follow-up Questions

How would you design a hold-out experiment if internal factors prevent running the old email sequence simultaneously?

One possibility is to randomize only a small portion of new users to keep receiving the old email flow. This hold-out group serves as your control. Although it involves intentionally giving some users a presumably suboptimal experience, it’s a common, necessary trade-off in experimental design. You can then measure conversion rates for both sets of users in the same time period, ensuring that any external factors (seasonality, competitor pricing changes) affect both groups equally.

If the conversion rate was already dropping before the new manager arrived, how might you separate that downward trend from the potential impact of the redesign?

A time-series model can be particularly helpful here. You would model the trend of declining conversion rates before the manager arrived, then check if there is a significant post-change departure from the expected trajectory. Alternatively, a difference-in-differences approach comparing a similar “untouched” product line or user segment can help you see if conversion rates in that comparable segment continued to decline while the segment subjected to the new email sequence reversed its downward trend.

What if there is no perfect control group because the new design was rolled out to everyone at once?

In that scenario, you might:

• Use synthetic control methods where you construct a “synthetic” control series from external data or from user segments less affected by the redesign. • Perform an interrupted time series analysis, modeling how the metric was trending before and seeing if the slope/intercept changes significantly at the intervention point.

These methods are more involved but can still offer insight into causality when a standard A/B test is not feasible.

Could a short testing window or small sample sizes affect results?

Yes, insufficient sample sizes (low user counts or a short testing period) lead to high variance in conversion rate estimates. This can cause type II errors (failing to detect a real effect) or produce inflated estimates of an effect that then shrink in larger datasets. Always conduct a power analysis to estimate the sample size needed for a statistically robust result.

How would you account for seasonal peaks that coincide with the redesign’s launch?

If the redesign happened right before a big seasonal peak (like holiday sales), you need a control group that experiences the same seasonal effects. If you have no such group, you must carefully compare the pre-redesign baseline for the same season in the previous year (or a multiple-year average). Statistical models that explicitly include seasonal components, such as SARIMAX or Facebook Prophet, can help you estimate what the conversion would have been absent the redesign, thus allowing you to isolate the redesign’s effect.

How can you ensure the analysis remains unbiased?

• Randomization: Where possible, randomly assign participants to treatment and control conditions. • Blinding: Ensure that the team evaluating outcomes is not biased by knowing which users got which emails. • Consistent Metrics: Maintain consistent measurement across periods, so “conversion rate” is tracked the same way in both pre- and post-intervention data. • Avoid Data Dredging: Pre-specify key hypotheses and metrics instead of sifting through every possible segmentation after the fact, which can inflate false positives.

All these measures help confirm whether the redesign is truly causing the change in conversion rates or if external variables are playing the main role.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How would you handle a scenario where only a subset of users were migrated to the new email flow midway through the measurement period, and the old flow was still in place for the rest?

One subtle pitfall is that self-selection or business-driven decisions can bias which users receive the new flow. Perhaps more active or more lucrative segments were the first to be migrated. This inherently skews your conversion rate comparison unless you explicitly track which users get which flow, at what time, and why they were selected. To mitigate these issues, random assignment is the gold standard: rather than migrating handpicked subsets first, split new users randomly into the old versus new flows. If business constraints force a non-random approach, carefully document each migration decision, and include relevant user attributes (such as average spend or geographic region) in your statistical analysis. Time-series segmentation can also help show if each migration point produced a measurable effect on conversion rates or if the observed changes align more with marketing cycles or seasonal patterns.

How do you address the possibility that other marketing tactics or pricing strategies coincided with the rollout of the new email sequence, making it unclear which factor led to the change?

A major edge case arises when multiple simultaneous interventions occur, such as price cuts, a new social media campaign, or an SEO overhaul. These confounding events can inflate or mask the effect of the email redesign if they launch around the same time. One approach is to explicitly model these potential confounders as regressors in a time-series analysis or a regression framework. For instance, if you have data on how many ads were shown during a certain period or whether a specific discount was offered, you can incorporate these factors as variables in a regression model. If the coefficient associated with the email redesign remains robust and significant even after controlling for these confounders, you gain confidence in its causal impact. If possible, you can also stagger or isolate the changes. For example, delay the new email sequence for a week if you know a major promotional campaign is ending, so that the email redesign’s effect is measured separately.

What if there is a backlog or delayed response from the new email flow, such that conversions happen days or even weeks after users receive the emails?

Some products or services have longer consideration phases, so a user might open or even ignore the initial email, only to convert a week or two later. This delayed conversion window can blur straightforward pre/post comparisons, especially if you only look at immediate conversion metrics. In this scenario, it’s crucial to define a sufficiently long attribution window that captures later conversions. You might measure not just same-day or same-week conversions but also track user actions for two or three subsequent weeks. For even more nuanced analysis, time-to-event (survival) models can be employed, where you track each user from the time they received the first email until they convert or until a set cutoff date. By comparing the survival curves (the probability of not converting up to each point in time) between users who get the new flow and those who do not, you can better isolate the effect of the redesign.

How can you determine whether the effect of the redesigned emails is lasting versus a short-term spike?

Short-term spikes often occur if the new content is more attention-grabbing, but the novelty might wear off quickly. To assess longevity, track conversion rates across multiple post-launch time intervals—immediately after launch, a few weeks later, and perhaps months later. A pitfall is concluding success too early if you see a brief surge but fail to watch for reversion to baseline. If the rate normalizes back to around 40% after a few weeks, that strongly implies the redesign did not create a stable improvement. Statistical process control charts can be helpful here, allowing you to monitor conversion rate fluctuations relative to historical baselines over time. If the metric consistently remains above the historical average within a confidence band, you have stronger evidence of a lasting effect.

What if you discover that the new flow benefits certain user segments but is neutral or harmful for others?

Segment-level performance differences are a real-world challenge. For instance, returning users might find the new series repetitive, reducing their engagement, whereas brand-new or dormant users might find the new content more compelling. This could net out to an overall minor improvement, masking significant positive or negative effects in subgroups. One approach is to slice your data by meaningful attributes like user acquisition channel, device type, or location. You might discover that the new flow is extremely effective among mobile-first users but has negligible impact on desktop users. With these insights, you can iterate the email content for specific segments or tailor user journeys differently based on the most responsive demographics. However, the more segments you compare, the higher the risk of false positives. Always correct for multiple comparisons or pre-specify which segments you believe are most relevant to avoid spurious findings.

How would you measure the business value of an increase from 40% to 43% to ensure the redesign’s ROI is worthwhile?

While a 3% lift might appear small, the impact could be significant in large-scale E-commerce platforms. The question is whether the net additional revenue from that 3% increase justifies development, design, and ongoing maintenance costs of the new email campaign. You would calculate the incremental revenue by multiplying the additional conversions by the average order value or customer lifetime value. In addition, consider whether the redesign might have other effects, such as reducing unsubscribe rates or improving brand perception. If the cost of maintaining the new email flow is high—e.g., more complex triggered workflows or manual customizations—compare these operational expenses with the incremental margin from those extra conversions. Only if the net value remains positive does the campaign truly pay off. Otherwise, you might refine or revert it.

How can you deal with missing or incomplete data, for example if some user actions fail to be tracked accurately during the transition?

Data integrity often takes a hit during system transitions. Some emails might not be logged properly, or the tracking pixels for certain users might fail, introducing potential biases if specific user cohorts become underrepresented in the data. For instance, if mobile app tracking is incorrectly configured, that entire segment may be missing. One solution is to evaluate data completeness before, during, and after the rollout. If you see a sudden drop in the volume of tracked events at launch, you need to correct for this or consider a robust data imputation strategy. Sensitivity analyses can help: try removing the incomplete data segments or applying various assumptions about their conversion rates and see if your conclusion about the redesign’s success still holds. If it changes drastically under different assumptions, the result is likely not reliable without better data.

How can you handle a situation where you do not have a suitable control group but still need to estimate the causal impact?

In the absence of a parallel control group, advanced observational methods can help approximate what would have happened without the redesign. Interrupted time series (ITS) analysis tracks the metric over time and identifies a structural break (change in level or slope) around the redesign date. Synthetic control methods can build a weighted combination of other metrics or user segments to mimic the pre-launch trends of your main group, then compare the post-launch divergence. Both methods rely on assumptions that the synthetic control or the pre/post time-series trend is a good stand-in for what would have happened in a “no redesign” world. Careful selection of predictor variables and model validation is essential to ensure results aren’t driven by random fluctuations.

How would you handle the case where multiple changes were made within the “redesigned” email campaign (e.g., new subject lines, different sending times, and new content), making it hard to pinpoint which element actually caused the difference?

When multiple variables change at once, it is challenging to isolate which element drove the impact. One approach is to conduct a multi-armed bandit or factorial experiment design. In a factorial design, you test each factor (subject line, send time, content, etc.) in different combinations across user groups. That way, you can estimate both main effects (each factor’s direct influence) and interaction effects (whether certain subject lines are especially potent when paired with a particular content style). However, factorial tests can quickly become complex when many factors are involved. Multi-armed bandit algorithms adaptively allocate traffic to more successful variants while still exploring less successful ones. This can be more efficient than traditional A/B tests, though it’s also more complex to analyze and implement. In either approach, the key is incrementally isolating the impact of each change rather than rolling out all changes simultaneously.

How do you interpret negative results or no significant lift after redesigning the email campaign?

Negative or null results might still be informative. They can reveal that either (1) the new design is not actually enhancing user engagement, (2) external factors overshadowed the potential improvement, or (3) the test was underpowered and simply couldn’t detect a small effect size. From a practical standpoint, you might iterate on the redesign—testing smaller changes or focusing on more targeted segments where you hypothesize a stronger lift. If repeated experiments consistently show no improvement, the company may redirect resources to other initiatives. It’s also important to evaluate the potential intangible benefits of a redesign, like improved branding or user experience, even if the immediate conversion metric does not show significant change.