While I believe in testing, I doubt that the new shade of blue is solely responsible for an extra $200m a year in revenue. Even if all the testing was done at the same time, the period with the alleged revenue increase was obviously later and during a whole year. So during that year a lot of other things including external market situations influenced the revenue change. Meaning there is no clear link between the shade of blue change and the revenue increase. Ofc a change of blue worth $200m / year makes a better headline, even if it's rubbish talk.