Co-Founder & M.D @ Louder.Online

As a businessman,  entrepreneur, and author, I've spent 16 years reshaping the landscape of our industry. 

Co-founding Louder.Online 16 years ago was the beginning of a journey that has led to global recognition, transformative partnerships, and multiple successful ventures.

Some of my journey's highlights include:

→ Co-authored the book "Faster, Smarter, Louder"
→ Consulted for Fortune 100 clients including Salesforce, Intel, IBM, Coca-Cola, and Target
→ Authored over 1,000 articles for major publications like Forbes, HubSpot, and Entrepreneur
→ Recognized as a thought leader by Content Marketing Institute and Search Engine Journal
→ Delivered speeches across the US, UK, Asia, and Australia

As a serial entrepreneur, I've:

→ Co-founded Louder.Online, recognized among the top 25 Martech Companies in Asia-Pacific
→ Started multiple businesses across various industries
→ Launched an M&A education business focused on small business acquisitions
→ Developed expertise in multi-channel marketing, SEO, PPC, CRO, and content marketing

My work has garnered attention from prestigious media outlets:

→ Featured in The Huffington Post, Forbes, and the Sydney Morning Herald
→ Regular contributor to HubSpot, Entrepreneur, and Fortune
→ Guest on popular podcasts like Mixergy and Entrepreneur on Fire

My approach goes beyond traditional marketing. I create actionable, thoughtful strategies that not only deliver new customers but build lasting brand relationships. 

If you're looking to revolutionize your digital presence, explore business acquisition opportunities, or drive your brand into the future, let's connect.

Aaron Agius

Ever notice how the louder a content team shouts about “strategy,” the faster they burn through budget and stall results?

If you think your content operation is bulletproof, you are probably wrong.

And that blind spot destroys ROI.

How most teams think they win:
➡️ Chase volume: Produce endlessly and hope engagement appears.
➡️ Add layers of approvals and meetings until creativity suffocates.
➡️ Recycle outdated playbooks and pretend their situation is different.

How I actually win with content:

➡️ Solve real, urgent pain points with precision.
If you are not addressing tangible problems, you are adding to the noise.

➡️ Publish genuinely useful resources, not empty thought leadership.
Practical insights that make the audience sharper every time they engage.

➡️ Track substance and proof relentlessly.
That’s customer journeys, conversions, revenue impact; not vanity metrics like reach alone.

Strong CTAs are not the answer.

The strongest brands do not force action.

They make action the logical next step.

Content failure is rarely accidental.

It comes from unclear objectives, weak measurement, and operational excuses.

Nearly half of marketers admit they do not set clear goals.

Most cannot track ROI.

Many lack scalable workflows.

These are not minor gaps.

They are structural flaws.

The companies that win take a different route.

They create fewer, sharper, high-value assets.

They automate where possible.

They measure everything.

They tie every initiative to outcomes, not abstract awareness.

You can waste another year defending empty metrics.

Or you can accept responsibility for every underperforming dollar.

The tools exist.

The data is accessible.

Execution is the difference.

Inaction is still a decision.

You are either building measurable value, or you’re wasting time.

There is no middle ground.

The Mistake 93% of Enterprise Content Teams Made Last Year

Every marketing “expert” clings to the same tired excuses: budget, competition, limited resources.

Meanwhile, their traffic goes nowhere.

If your content strategy is still human-driven guesswork and generic SEO blasts, you’re not innovative.

You’re irrelevant.

Transforming Stagnation into Domination

Challenge: Content and SEO produced nothing but substandard work.

Traffic stalled at 12,000 soulless visitors a month.

Engagement was weak.

Revenue barely moved.

Action: We gutted outdated tactics and killed content for content’s sake.

We embedded AI into every core strategic decision.

AI exposed blind spots, mapped real audience intent, personalized aggressively, and predicted demand before prospects articulated it.

Result: Monthly visitors surged past 137,000.

Attributed pipeline revenue crossed $1.2 million.

Competitors faded while my site became a primary revenue engine.

Insight? Manual, intuition-driven marketing is dead.

AI is not just an advantage.

It delivers precise targeting, efficiency, and scalable growth.

Rely on gut instinct alone and survival becomes uncertain.

Don’t kid yourself.

AI does not “help a little.”

It replaces outdated playbooks entirely.

If your traffic is stagnant, leads are weak, and your site feels like a digital graveyard, the choice is simple: evolve with AI or disappear.

You can cling to tactics that stopped working years ago and blame the market.

Or accept reality and execute an AI-powered overhaul.

That is not opinion. That is data.

Ever faced a similar situation?

Did you rip the band-aid off or let the wound fester?

How AI Content Strategies Affect Growth

The difference between surviving Google’s updates and dominating them is night and day.

Most marketers still treat every algorithm update like a disaster, scrambling and hoping they survive.

That fear is the real liability, because Google’s updates are not random.

Every update over the past two years reveals a clear blueprint for stronger enterprise SEO results, if you pay attention to the pattern.

If your rankings dropped after a Core Update, it is rarely because Google suddenly changed the rules.

Google is cleaning house.

Strategies built on link spam, AI-generated filler, and irrelevant keywords are being pushed out of relevance.

My enterprise SEO strategy:
➔ Human-first, expert-driven content
➔ Ruthless elimination of low-value assets
➔ Core Web Vitals and UX as non-negotiable priorities

Too complicated? Here is what that looks like in practice.

Weekly we identify and remove thin pages that add no value.

We produce comprehensive, educational content backed by real expertise.

We track user behavior signals like session duration and bounce rate closely because Google does the same.

In addition:
➔ Every page must offer something original: a unique insight, real answers, or resources competitors lack
➔ Backlink profiles are aggressively audited and anything resembling spam is removed
➔ We rely on tools like SEMRush, Clearscope, and Ahrefs to eliminate guesswork

What worked? Relentless focus on real human value and content pruning.

What did not work? Chasing update “hacks” or relying on keyword stuffing and shortcuts.

Google is systematically removing mediocrity.

I stopped reacting to updates and started aligning with Google’s long-term direction: genuine expertise and real user value.

The era of gaming the algorithm is over.

Adapt or disappear.

How Google's Algorithm Updates Affects SEO

The fastest way to slow down growth is to hire your way into complexity.

Join the top 1 percent of marketing leaders by doing this:

Stop obsessing over the “perfectly sized” marketing team.

It is one of the most expensive delusions in this industry.

I have seen leaders waste months debating headcount, building bloated teams based on outdated dogma that size equals strength.

It does not.

By the time inefficiency shows up in performance, it is already too late.

I have watched compact teams of five outperform departments of twenty.

Small, cohesive teams win because they are forced to execute, not posture.

If you are:
➡️ Constantly onboarding another specialist
➡️ Sitting in meetings that produce no action
➡️ Hiding behind collective decisions

Then you have a speed problem, not a staffing problem.

Iteration beats headcount. Every time.

Lean teams move faster, adapt quicker, and optimize in real time.

Large teams talk about agility.

Small teams operate with it.

Most marketing organizations stagnate because they cannot move.

The highest-performing growth companies iterate relentlessly, often with only a handful of decision-makers driving execution.

Inside oversized departments, a small core usually does the real work anyway.

Authority is diluted.

Accountability disappears.

Momentum dies.

While others chase the mythical “right size,” disciplined teams refine what works and double down each quarter.

They prioritize precision over scale.

We do not invest in headcount for optics.

We invest in cohesion, urgency, and iteration.

That is how we stay competitive.

I watched another “SEO specialist” interview fall apart over one tired question:
“How many years of SEO experience do you have?”

That question belongs in a different era.

The future of digital marketing will bury anyone clinging to tenure as a proxy for skill.

Years do not equal impact.

Time spent does not equal value created.

Too many interviews still default to experience.

The market now rewards disruptive thinking, adaptability, and proof of execution.

Asking for “years of SEO” is often a signal you are hiring for comfort, not capability.

Today’s environment does not reward safe bets.

It rewards calculated risk-takers.

Better questions look like this:
➡️ How did you turn a disruptive trend into measurable growth?
➡️ Where did you reduce acquisition costs through data leverage?
➡️ How did you integrate AI without sacrificing organic performance?
➡️ How did you recover and outperform after a failed campaign?

The best marketers I hire do not hide behind tenure.

They demonstrate adaptable, relentless problem-solving.

They do not just understand SEO.

They deploy it alongside AI, social, video, email, and analytics to drive outcomes.

The data reflects the disconnect.

67 percent of digital leaders rank innovation as a top hiring priority, yet 81 percent admit their interviews still center on experience.

It is no surprise that many brands are stagnating.

Experience alone is not a strategy.

Innovation is the advantage.

The market will not wait.

The leaders who prioritize adaptability and measurable impact will stay ahead.

The rest will struggle to remain relevant.

Stop Asking About SEO Experience: What to Ask Instead

Most enterprise content strategies fail before they even launch.

What looks like a plan is often a time bomb of vanity metrics, spreadsheet theater, and absent leadership.

This is the current reality.

Disconnected ideas labeled as “strategy.”

High-volume production with no commercial purpose.

Teams trapped in approvals and endless meetings.

That is not a system.

It is chaos with branding.

The alternative is disciplined execution.

Ruthless clarity.

Real accountability.

Leadership that actually leads.

Each week I focus on:
➡️ Aligning content directly with business objectives
➡️ Eliminating low-impact content before it goes live
➡️ Holding leadership accountable for measurable outcomes

In addition:
➡️ When priorities shift, we pivot immediately without bureaucracy
➡️ Scalability is engineered from day one
➡️ Metrics are tied to conversions, revenue, and market position, not surface engagement

What works is simple.

Treat content strategy as core infrastructure, not a side project.

What fails is equally predictable.

Volume for reporting optics.

Delegating strategy downward and hoping for alignment.

Without candor, accountability, and agility, enterprise content collapses under its own weight.

Strategy is not a creative exercise.

It is operational survival.

I refuse to tolerate mediocrity.

We build systems that reward ownership, speed, and adaptability.

The difference between relevance and decline is what leadership is willing to confront and correct.

If alignment and accountability are missing, failure is not surprising.

It is inevitable.

Why Most Enterprise Content Strategies Fail

One year ago, I stopped groveling for high-value clients just because the zeros looked pretty.

The myth that more money always equals more success is the fantasy that quietly pushes businesses into chaos.

Behind every oversized check is a cost nobody talks about.

And no:
➔ I didn’t walk away because I feared growth or pressure
➔ I wasn’t overwhelmed by scope
➔ I didn’t need mindset exercises to cope with a “missed opportunity”

The truth is simple.

Accepting a $500,000 client who reeked of entitlement, chaos, and misaligned values would have detonated everything I built.

My team saw it.

Since I stopped pandering to anyone flashing a big wallet:
➔ Headaches and team churn dropped to near zero
➔ Revenue climbed 33 percent with aligned clients
➔ Our reputation strengthened, driving consistent referrals from businesses that respect boundaries

Stop gasping every time a big number lands in your inbox.

Half a million means nothing if you compromise your standards.

The ones chasing every dollar become trapped by toxic clients, burned-out teams, and unstable revenue.

I would rather walk away from $500,000 than damage my brand, morale, and sanity.

A year later, the lesson is clear.

Choose alignment over ego, long-term stability over flashy wins, and ownership over regret.

Why Rejecting Some Clients is a Power Move

Make no mistake: Every time you say “yes” to an energy-draining, brand-destroying client, you’re saying “no” to the right ones. The ones who respect you, who pay what you’re worth, who become partners for the long haul. You can’t build an empire working for clients who make you hate your business.

Let’s rip the bandage off: I turned down half a million dollars. You read that right. A client walked in, contracts ready, eager to dump a fat $500,00

Open article: Why I Rejected $500,000: The Raw Truth Business “Leaders” Refuse To Admit by Aaron Agius • 7 min read

Why I Rejected $500,000: The Raw Truth Business “Leaders” Refuse To Admit

Your content team’s fate isn’t dictated by budget, competition, or industry quirks. It’s dictated by your willingness—or cowardice—to demand better. Every tool, system, and piece of data you need is already here. Most of you still won’t use them.

Let me save you from the polite, watered-down nonsense filling your feed. I’m here to tear through the delusions and expose why 93% of enterprise cont

Open article: What’s Destroying 93% of Enterprise Content Teams? The Million-Dollar Errors You’re Still Making by Aaron Agius • 7 min read

What’s Destroying 93% of Enterprise Content Teams? The Million-Dollar Errors You’re Still Making

If all you want are box-tickers awash in the past, keep asking those canned questions. If you want to dominate, start judging marketers the way true innovators are made: by pushing them to the edge, then seeing if their ideas can fly or if they crash and burn. Because in a market that tears up the rulebook every quarter, only those who thrive on reinvention dare to lead.

If you're still asking, “How many years have you been doing SEO?” during interviews, you're publicly announcing that your business is stuck in the dig

Open article: Stop Asking About SEO Experience: The Only Interview Question That Matters in Marketing by Aaron Agius • 11 min read

Stop Asking About SEO Experience: The Only Interview Question That Matters in Marketing

Old methods are a death sentence. The leap from 12,000 to 137,000 monthly visitors is not a fairy tale. It’s what happens when you weaponize AI against mediocrity. When revenue explodes, when your brand becomes the gravitational force in your market, you stop debating and start leading.

You want the truth about AI-driven content strategy? Here it is, raw and unfiltered. Welcome to the future—where mediocrity is dead, excuses have no p

Open article: AI-Driven Content Strategy: The End of Guesswork and the Start of Predictable Revenue by Aaron Agius • 10 min read

AI-Driven Content Strategy: The End of Guesswork and the Start of Predictable Revenue

Is your organization still flinching with every core update? Or have you finally realized that Google’s public roadmap is your playbook—and your execution, not your excuses, is what keeps you on top?

The pattern behind Google’s updates isn’t random; it’s a calculated demolition of mediocrity. If you’re clinging to tired SEO tricks, you’re already d

Open article: The Brutal Pattern Behind Google Updates: Why Enterprise SEO Winners Think Differently by Aaron Agius • 7 min read

The Brutal Pattern Behind Google Updates: Why Enterprise SEO Winners Think Differently

Compact, cohesive digital marketing teams will outpace their competition in every meaningful category—speed, creativity, ROI, and long-term brand growth. Not because they’re lucky or scrappy, but because their constraints force them to be smarter, leaner, and infinitely more accountable.

Here’s a truth that will annihilate your precious assumptions: headcount means nothing. Effectiveness isn’t some pointless numbers game. Efficiency, f

Open article: Why Small, Cohesive Marketing Teams Obliterate the Myth of “Bigger is Better” by Aaron Agius • 8 min read

Why Small, Cohesive Marketing Teams Obliterate the Myth of “Bigger is Better”

Most enterprise content strategies implode not because of market volatility, lack of resources, or demonic algorithms, but because they are fundamentally broken at conception. Misconceptions, denial, and institutionalized mediocrity are their bedrock. The evidence is everywhere, yet most so-called “leaders” are too spineless or too arrogant to confront it.

I’m here to incinerate illusions. Call this an exposé, call it an assault—regardless, you’ll walk away bruised if you have a shred of honesty left in 

Open article: Why Most Enterprise Content Strategies Fail: The Inconvenient Truths No “Expert” Will Admit by Aaron Agius • 8 min read

Why Most Enterprise Content Strategies Fail: The Inconvenient Truths No “Expert” Will Admit

Helping E-Commerce Brands Scale on Facebook with creative & conversion-driven strategies.

Founder of the Nomad Project, a performance marketing agency, emphasizing in paid media performance through Facebook and Google ads. My journey includes years of deep-rooted experience in e-commerce, notably leading the growth trajectory of Loop Club, culminating in its successful acquisition.

Ben Radack

Here's how you can prevent your new ads from getting zero spend in your scaling campaign.

You test 4 concepts. All 4 win. You move them to your scaling campaign/ad set.

But only 1 gets spend. The other 3 sit there at $10-20/day doing nothing.

Sound familiar?

Here's what's actually happening.

Meta picked its favorite and is ignoring the rest. But those 3 ads are proven winners from testing. Meta just hasn't figured that out yet in this campaign.

Most media buyers kill those ads after a week. Don't.

What I do instead:

→ I have an extra ad set in my scaling campaign just for new graduates that aren't getting spend
→ I set a min spend limit at 2-3x my average CPA
→ This forces Meta to actually spend on them
Now those ads get a fair shot.

Meta has to give them enough budget to prove themselves.

Once they start generating purchases or picking up engagement, Meta starts pushing real spend their way.

Without this you're waiting for Meta to eventually discover ads it already decided to ignore.

That can take a month.
Or never happen at all.

Force the audition.

Media buyer & creative strategist - I help brands lower their CPA with Facebook ads

How I identify ad fatigue.

There's no single metric for it. Some media buyers say frequency but that's not always related.

Here's what I actually look at:

→ First, CPA. Are any ads consistently running above target? Not one bad day. Consistently.

→ Then I check where that ad sits in the ad set regarding spend. The top spending ad usually has a higher CPA because it's bringing people into the funnel. That one gets a longer leash.

→ Then I look at a combination of link CTR and add to cart rate. These two together tell the real story. If both are dropping over time, the ad is fatiguing. People are seeing it too much and it's not landing anymore.

→ I also watch checkout to purchase rate. If people are getting all the way to checkout but not buying, that's a different problem. But if this drops alongside CTR and ATC rate, the whole funnel is cooling off.

The key is looking at these together not in isolation. 

An ad might have a bad CPA day but if CTR and ATC rate are still strong, it's probably fine. Just a slow day.

The hardest skill in media buying is doing nothing.

Your CPA spikes on a Tuesday and every instinct tells you to change something.

Pause an ad. Adjust a budget. Change the structure.

But most of the time the best move is to wait.

→ Bad days happen. One bad day isn't a trend.
→ Meta fluctuates. The algorithm has good days and bad days just like you.
→ Reacting too fast resets learnings and makes things worse.

The media buyers who struggle the most are the ones who can't sit on their hands. They optimize themselves into a hole.

We removed a 10% discount and our CPA went up 85% overnight.

Most people would panic and put the offer back on. We didn't.

Here's what actually happens when you change an offer.

Everyone currently in your funnel saw the old price. They've been considering the purchase for 24-48 hours. Now they come back and the price is higher. So they don't buy.

That's what I refer to as a funnel flush problem.

Here's what I did to get things back under control:

→ Turned off the top spending ads. Yes, our original top performers.
→ This forces Meta to reset. The old funnel needs to cycle out.
→ Gave it 3 days to optimize and find new people who never saw the original offer.

Slowly purchases start rolling in again. These are people who only know the current price.

No comparison. No sticker shock.

CPA came back down.

The mistake most founders make is reacting to the first 48 hours after an offer change.

That data isn't real. It's the old funnel dying.

Let it flush. Give Meta time. Then decide what to do.

The ad account structure behind a $450k/mo spend. Full breakdown.

Here's what we're running right now and why everything has its place.

Campaigns:

→ CBO for scaling proven winners
→ ABO for creative testing
→ CBO for whitelisting/partnership ads (separate so we can track creator performance)
→ ABO for landing page tests using Meta's Experiment tool

Four campaigns. Each one has a specific job. Nothing overlaps.

Creative volume to sustain that spend:

→ 100-150 ads tested per month
→ Up to 2 variations per concept/angle
→ 25% static images
→ 75% videos (street interviews, podcast, product reviews etc)

You need this volume at this spend level... some brands go far beyond that.

Creative fatigues fast when you're pushing this much budget. If you're not feeding the account new ads weekly it will hit a wall.

Landing page / offer testing:
→ 2 new landing pages per month
→ Mix of sales pages with different offers and listicle style pages (best of, 5 reasons why, etc.)
→ Running through Meta's Experiment tool for clean A/B data

This structure isn't for every account. But at $450k/mo this is what it takes to keep things going.

Stop spending all your time in Ads Manager.

→ Study your client's product
→ Read their customer reviews
→ Understand their margins
→ Know their email strategy
→ Look at their landing pages on mobile

The media buyers who only know how to push buttons in Ads Manager are the ones who get replaced.

The ones who understand the full business are the ones who become irreplaceable.

Ads Manager is maybe 30% of the job. The other 70% is everything around it.

Stop making decisions on averages. Use daily breakdowns instead! Here's why...

A 7 day average can and will lie to you.

One day with a couple high AOV purchases sends your ROAS up and suddenly the whole week looks great.

Or one terrible day drags your average down and a perfectly good ad looks like a loser.

Averages hide what's really happening.

What I do instead:

→ Select the ad you're analyzing
→ Go to filter (top left) and select "filter only selected row"
→ Set the date range to last 7 day
→ Click into the breakdowns and select "day"

Now I can see exactly what happened each day.

What I'm looking for:

→ 3+ consecutive good days? That ad is working. Scale it.
→ 3+ consecutive bad days? That ad is done. Kill it.
→ 2 great days and 5 bad ones? That average might look okay but the ad isn't consistent. Those 2 good days were probably a fluke or an email send inflating the numbers.

The daily breakdown also catches things you'd miss with averages:

→ An ad that was failing all week but started working yesterday. The average still looks bad but the trend is turning. Don't kill it yet.
→ An ad that crushed it early in the week but died 3 days ago. The average still looks decent but it's already over.

Consistency over 3+ days is what I'm looking for.

Not averages. Not single day spikes.

Daily breakdowns tell you the real story. Averages tell you a summary that's probably wrong.

This is your monthly reminder that you can save your dead ads with a Zombie Campaign.

Here's how it works:

→ Launch a CBO with a cost cap set 30%+ below your average CPA 
→ Duplicate all your failed tests into one ad set 

The low cost cap means Meta will only spend when it can find a cheap conversion. 

Some of those "failed" ads didn't fail because they were bad. They failed because they never got enough spend or didn't get enough time to optimize.

At a low cost cap, Meta cherry picks the cheapest opportunities. 

Every 2 weeks to a month:

→ Launch a new ad set with your latest batch of failed tests 
→ Set a min spend limit on it so Meta doesn't completely ignore the new ads 
→ Let the older ad sets run without touching them

You'll be surprised how many "dead" ads come back to life in this campaign. It won't be all of them. But even pulling 2-3 winners out of the graveyard is free money you would've left on the table.

Open your account right now and do this.

→ Sort all your ads by spend
→ Set your time frame to 14 days
→ Look at the bottom - the ads that have been running the longest but spent the least

Meta decided it didn't like them. But Meta isn't always right.

→ Duplicate those ads into a new ad set
→ Fresh start
→ Let them run

You'll find new winners this way. I've seen ads that got $10 of spend in 2 weeks turn into top performers when they got a second chance in a new ad set.

You're basically betting that Meta made the wrong spend allocation decision.

And it does. More often than you'd think.

Takes 2 minutes. Try it.

You can test and scale your ads in one CBO. Here's how I structure it.

Two types of ad sets inside one campaign

1. The scaling ad set (your proven winners):

→ Cost cap set at 20%ish below your average CPA - keeps things profitable
→ Min spend limit to force Meta to focus most of the budget here
→ These are ads that already proved themselves. You want the bulk of spend going here.
→ Adjust the min spend as needed based on how the campaign is performing

2. Testing ad sets (new creative batches):

→ One new ad set for every large batch of creatives you want to test (not testing ad set per concept)
→ Min spend limit so Meta doesn't starve them
→ Max spend limit so they can't blow through budget on unproven ads
→ High cost cap - you need these to actually spend so you can collect data. A tight cost cap on fresh ads prevents meta from giving them a shot

As ads prove themselves in the testing ad sets, duplicate them into the scaling ad set.

That's the whole system.

→ Testing ad sets feed winners into the scaling ad set
→ Scaling ad set runs your proven ads at a profitable CPA
→ One CBO handles everything

This strategy is great for brands that may not have the budget for separate testing campaigns, and allows you to test and scale in the same place.

Yes you'll miss out on potential winners with large batch tests, but you'll also find ads quickly and keep things consolidated.

Your best performing ad might be your worst ad.

Meta is really good at finding people who are already ready to buy. These people will convert on a mid ad. It doesn't need to be great. They were already going to buy.

So you look at the data and think the ad is crushing it. But it's not the ad. It's the audience.

Try scaling it. CPA spikes. It falls apart. Because it was never a good ad. It was just shown to easy buyers.

I've seen so many accounts get stuck here. Ads that perform well but only to warm audiences. Can't scale. Can't grow.

The fix:

→ Make ads for people who don't know you yet
→ Test against cold audiences
→ If someone who has never heard of you stops scrolling, that's a scalable ad

An ad that converts warm traffic is easy. An ad that creates new demand is where the real money is.

I have a client that only runs ads through non-brand Facebook pages. And it's crushing.

No ads from the brand page at all. Everything comes from pages we created.

Here's how to set this up:

→ Create Facebook pages for your content creators (with their permission)
→ You can also create tastemaker pages based on your niche (think "Pro Sleep Tips" or "Daily Wellness Hacks")
→ Warm them up for a month. Post content etc
→ Run them in a warmup campaign at under $100/day just to build some history
→ After a month, graduate them to your testing campaign and run your top performing creative from these pages

People trust a person or a niche page way more than a brand they've never heard of.

Same ad, different page, different results.

Try it.

Batch testing 50 ads works like carving a marble block.

Here's how.

You launch 50 ads in one ad set. Meta immediately picks 1-2 to spend on. The other 48 get barely anything.

Most people stop here. They judge the 48 as losers and move on.

I don't.

→ Take the 48 ads that didn't get spend
→ Put them in a new ad set
→ Let Meta pick its favorites again
→ Pull the winners
→ Repeat with whatever's left

Each round you're chipping away at the block. Finding winners that Meta missed the first time.

Here's why this works.

I'm somewhere in the middle on trusting Meta. It's good at finding winners. When it picks 1-2 ads out of 50, those are usually solid. So the first round works in your favor.

But Meta also misses things. It makes a quick decision early on and ignores the rest. Doesn't mean those ads are bad. It means they never got a shot.

By retesting the leftovers in a fresh ad set, you're forcing Meta to look again with fresh eyes. And every round you find 1-2 more winners it would have never discovered.

→ Round 1: 50 ads, find 2 winners
→ Round 2: 48 ads, find 2 more
→ Round 3: 46 ads, find 1-2 more

You keep carving until there's nothing left worth testing.

This isn't for everyday testing. It's for when you need to find winners fast and you've got a big batch of creative to get through.

I scale my whitelisting ads in their own campaign. Here's the setup.

New whitelisting tests go in my creative testing ABO like everything else. Nothing special here.

When one wins, it gets duplicated into a dedicated whitelisting CBO.

The structure:

→ One ad set per page 
→ Never combine different pages in the same ad set 
→ This way I can see exactly which creators are performing and which aren't 
→ Min spend limits on newer creator ad sets so Meta actually gives them a chance to prove themselves

That's it.

Your ad is saying too much.

I see this all the time. Brands try to pack every selling point into one ad.

"Boosts energy. Improves focus. Supports gut health. Reduces stress. Enhances mood."

Nobody reads that. Their brain checks out after the second benefit. Too many choices, too much to process.

They scroll.

What works better:

→ "Finally, energy that lasts all day"

That's it. One promise. One reason to care. The brain makes a quick yes or no decision and moves on.

But here's where most brands miss the opportunity.

Each of those benefits is its own ad. Its own angle. Its own audience.

→ The person who wants energy is not the same person who wants gut health
→ The person who wants focus is not the same person who wants stress relief

So instead of one ad trying to convince everyone, make 4-5 ads that each nail one specific benefit.

→ Energy angle for the tired parent
→ Focus angle for the busy professional
→ Gut health angle for the wellness person
→ Stress angle for the burned out worker

More angles. More pockets of your audience. Better performance.

Less is more in the ad. More is more in the account.

Your scaling campaign should never depend on one ad set.

I see this all the time. One ad set eating 80% of the budget. Everything looks great until those ads fatigue. Then the whole account crashes overnight because there's nothing behind it.

Here's how I prevent this:

→ Every month I launch a new ad set in my scaling CBO with that month's proven winners
→ Each ad set gets a min spend limit so Meta is forced to distribute budget across all of them
→ No single ad set is ever responsible for the majority of total spend

So when an ad set starts losing steam:

→ It's only 20-30% of your budget, not everything
→ The other ad sets are already scaled and pick up the slack
→ Performance dips instead of crashes

As older ad sets fatigue I turn them off. New ones are already running behind them.

Think of it like a rotation. You're always building the next wave of winners while the current ones are still performing. By the time they die, the replacements are already warmed up and spending.

Your account should be able to lose its top ad set tomorrow and keep moving. If it can't, you've got a structure problem.

taplio

The Battle

Aaron Agius

Ben Radack

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreAaron Agius's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreBen Radack's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Aaron Agius

Ben Radack

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Aaron Agius's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreBen Radack's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreAaron Agius's LinkedIn Performance