Scaling eCommerce Brands Through Profitable Acquisition

Driving profitable, scalable growth for 8 and 9-figure eCommerce brands through integrated performance marketing, creative, and data systems.

AFR Fast Starter 2024 | Finalist Melbourne Young Entrepreneur | Startup of The Year | Emerging Agency of The Year

At Blue Sense Digital, we work with 8 and 9- figure eCommerce brands to align growth strategy with financial outcomes and operational leverage.

We work with businesses where marketing, finance, and operations need to be aligned for profitable scale.

Our clients typically operate in:
· Fashion & Lifestyle
· Consumer Goods
· Home & Living

We believe profitable scale depends on three critical levers:

→ Creative Velocity & Diversity
→ Technical Account Structure
→ Data Integrity

By integrating these pillars, we help brands build a scalable acquisition model, tied directly to financial outcomes.

For earlier-stage brands, we share proven frameworks and strategies through educational content and resources:

→ https://www.youtube.com/@bluesensedigital

If you’re an eCommerce leader ready to build your next chapter of growth, let’s connect: 
https://calendly.com/bluesensedigital/exploratory

I promise to honour your time.

Nathan Perdriau

We are looking for A-players who are seeking rapid skill development (outside of the ad account).

You will:
→ Be implementing across 8-9 figure retailers 
→ Step into a clear roadmap towards leadership from day one 
→ Learn from our lead strategist, myself & team leaders to accelerate your development

You will learn:
→ Financial analysis & forecasting 
→ DTC & omni-channel growth strategy
→ Data science for causal experimentation
→ Creative strategy & planning

If you have 3+ years of experience in performance marketing, then I'd love to talk. 

It DOES NOT matter where you're based globally. We hire from everywhere.

Please do NOT message me if:
→ You don't have incredibly high standards for yourself
→ You don't take accountability for everything around you
→ You aren't a perpetual student

If you think you're a fit, send me a message.

And if you know a sharp, experienced marketer who's outgrown their current role - please pass this along.

Thanks.

Producing Better Financial Outcomes for 8-9 Figure Brands

Ads in 2026 are unforgiving.

Miss one of these and you’re playing on hard mode.

Here’s what actually matters right now.

1. Your base Meta structure
   Manual campaigns are basically gone.
   Everything is Advantage+ now, with manual control layered in.

The simplest version that works:

- One testing campaign with low budgets
- Winners get moved via post ID into a scaling campaign

Not perfect for every account.
But a solid default.

2. AOV and LTV are non-negotiable
   Trying to make Meta work on a $30–$40 product?
   In the US?
   Good luck.

Reality:

- Sub $75 AOV struggles
- Sub $100 AOV is brutal unless cohorts carry it

CPMs don’t care about your margins.

3. Partnership ads still matter
   Not a “hack” anymore.
   Too saturated for that.

But still one of the few levers that moves results.
Especially founder-led and creator-led pages.

And yes, they behave differently to standard ads.
The page data matters.

4. Creative investment wins accounts
   This is the big one.

If you’re spending $300k/month on Meta and:
→ $10–20k on creative

You’re underinvesting.

If your competitor spends:
→ $300k on media
→ $60k on content

They will beat you.
Even with worse buying.

In 2025, creative is the strategy.
Media buying just distributes it.

Budget accordingly.

undefined undefined

Comment

Watch our guide here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpYApVNu-Y

teagan youtube

blue-sense-digital

blues-brothers-podcast

Emmanuel Daniel

Every time you launch an ad set, all the spend goes into just one ad.

How do we fix this?

How do we get some spend into ads 2 and 3?

We spent all this money and time making these creatives. We want to know if they worked.

Four options:

Option 1: Relaunch without ad 1

Force spend through the other 3 ads.

Is that a good idea?

It'll let you test these ads, but there's probably a reason they weren't getting spend.

They're not going to perform as well as ad 1.

If you're maximizing efficiency, not a great move.

Option 2: Do nothing

Just leave these 4 ads running.

2 won't get any spend. Oh well.

Meta is really good at distributing spend, so we trust it.

Option 3: Set up creative testing

This is a new feature Meta rolled out about 2 months ago.

You select the ads you want even spend distribution through and it will distribute spend accordingly.

Option 4: Make new creatives

Make more creatives like the one getting all the spend.

What's the best option?

Best: Make new creatives.

Make more creatives like the one getting all the spend.

Second best: Do nothing.

There's a reason these ads aren't getting spend. They probably won't perform well.

Is that true all the time? No. 5% of the time, Meta might be wrong and you need spend through them.

But 95% of the time, you'll be wrong trying to distribute spend here.

Third best: Set up the creative testing feature.

Worst: Duplicate and turn off the high-performing ad.

I've never really seen that work as a strategy.

The lesson:

Stop trying to force spend into underperforming ads.

Either trust Meta's distribution or make more winners.

Don't fight the algorithm just to test ads that probably won't work.

Make more of what's already working.

That's how you scale.

If you’re running Advantage+ and judging ads by ROAS alone…

You’re probably scaling retargeting.

In a post-segmented world, we don’t structure accounts as:

* Top of funnel
* Middle of funnel
* Bottom of funnel

Everything sits inside one broad campaign.

So you’ve lost visibility.

Here’s the metric that replaces funnel labels:

Frequency.

How to use it properly:

Step 1
Look at the last 7 days only.
Not 30 days. Not lifetime.

Step 2
Add frequency at ad level.

Step 3
Interpret exposure depth:

* 1–2 = mostly cold
* 3–4 = warming
* 5+ in 3–4 days = heavy retargeting

Real example from a large spend account:

Ad 1
Frequency: 7 (in 3 days)
Purchases: high
ROAS: strong

The team’s instinct?
“Scale it. Make more like this.”

Wrong.

It’s winning because it’s serving warm / bottom-of-funnel users repeatedly.

Now compare:

Ad 2
Frequency: 1.8
Purchases: lower
ROAS: weaker

Most teams pause this.

But this is likely the best true cold-acquisition creative in the account.

And cold performance is what determines the ceiling.

If you ignore frequency, you’ll:

* Overproduce retargeting-style creative
* Underinvest in prospecting angles
* Hit a growth plateau you can’t explain

Here’s the system I recommend for $5m–$500m brands:

1. Categorise ads weekly by frequency band.
2. Judge performance inside its exposure bucket.
3. Scale cold winners separately from warm converters.
4. Build creativity intentionally for each depth of awareness.

Frequency isn’t just a delivery metric.

It’s your funnel diagnostic in consolidated accounts.

Most brands optimise for visible ROAS.

Operators optimise for where the conversion actually originated.

What do I actually do day-to-day at the agency?

The highest leverage opportunity within an agency is people.

An agency is fundamentally a recruitment and training business in that order.

Then sales and marketing.

Here's exactly how my time is split:

40% training

All the ancillary activities associated with developing the team.

30-40% client delivery

Strategy, quarterly planning, account oversight.

20% sales-related activities

Audits, content, ads.

(I batch everything so it's very time-efficient.)

My co-founder spends 40% of his time on recruiting alone.

The key takeaway for agency owners:

If your time is disproportionately spent on sales and marketing, you're probably not running a very good agency.

You shouldn't be demand-constrained.

You should have infinite demand because you should actually be good.

The real constraint on a good agency is hiring and talent.

That's where a lot of your time should go.

And here's the key for eComm brands vetting agencies:

Ask the founders directly:

"How much of your time is spent on recruiting, hiring, and training?"

Because that is what makes an agency good.

If time isn't being spent there by the founders, it's probably being spent there by no one.

And therefore, it's just a sales and marketing machine focused on acquiring clients.

Not on actually serving them well.

What to ask when vetting an agency:

1. How do you recruit your team?
2. What does your training process look like?
3. How much time do the founders spend on training vs sales?
4. What's your team retention rate?

The best agencies are talent obsessed.

Not lead generation obsessed.

If they can't answer those questions clearly, keep looking.

This Meta setting could be hurting your performance.

It’s called "maximise number of conversions.”
It’s the default. You’re probably using it.

The problem is simple: it optimises for the lowest CPA, not profit.

That sounds good at first. Cheaper purchases should mean more sales, right?
Not if you sell multiple products.

Example:

Product 1: Hoodie ($90)
Product 2: T-shirt ($50)

Costs:
Hoodie delivery: $21
T-shirt delivery: $13

CPA:
Hoodie: $45
T-shirt: $25

Both products are at 2x ROAS.
T-shirt: spend $25 to make $50
Hoodie: spend $45 to make $90

Same ROAS.

But Meta will push spend to the t-shirt because it has the lower CPA.
Meta doesn’t care about ROAS or profit. It cares about CPA.

Now look at profit contribution:

T-shirt: $50 - $13 - $25 = $12
Hoodie: $90 - $21 - $45 = $24

The hoodie is twice as profitable.

But if you’re using “maximise number of conversions,” Meta will still send most of the budget to the t-shirt.

This shows up a lot in fashion accounts.
A low-priced item gets added to the campaign and suddenly eats all the spend.

Why?
Lower price = lower CPA = algorithm favourite.

The fix:

If you want higher AOV, better profit contribution, and smarter budget allocation across products, switch to “maximise conversion value.”

That tells Meta to prioritise value, not just cheap purchases.

Stop optimising for the cheapest conversion.
Start optimising for the most profitable one.

If you still think Meta targeting = interests & look-a-likes…

You’re 5 years behind.

Here’s how targeting actually works in 2026.

Back in 2019:

* Someone engaged with pet content
* Meta slapped a “pets” label on them
* You targeted the “pets” interest
* Ads were shown to everyone with that tag

Simple.

But, people being “interested in pets” tells you almost nothing about:

* Income
* Location
* Buying behaviour
* Psychographics
* Brand affinity

So Meta changed the algorithm.

They moved from label-based targeting
→ to vector-based targeting.

Here’s what that means in plain English:

Instead of tagging someone as “pets”…

Meta positions every user inside a multi-dimensional space.

Every:

* Post
* Reel
* Story
* Click
* Purchase

Pushes that user in a certain direction.

Over time, people naturally cluster.

Example:

* High-income mums who like pets
* Urban males into outdoors + premium brands
* Fitness-focused students in major cities

They don’t share one label.

They share a pattern.

Now here’s the important part for brands:

When you run broad…

Meta doesn’t “ignore targeting”.

It tests your ad across the space.

Then it identifies which cluster responds.

Then it doubles down on users who sit near that cluster.

Your creative becomes the targeting filter.

That’s why:

* Weak creative fails in broad
* Strong creative scales aggressively

And why layering 20 interests does almost nothing now.

Practical takeaway:

If you’re running ASC or broad campaigns:

1. Stop obsessing over interest stacks.
2. Focus on clear ICP-aligned messaging.
3. Analyse who is actually buying (geo, AOV, device, age bands).
4. Feed that insight back into creative angles.

Your job isn’t to find the audience.

It’s to create ads that attract the right cluster.

Back with ABOs and CBOs, here's how they worked:

They'd serve to 1,000 random people.

Once you accumulated 50 conversions, Meta knew who to target.

Then it would exit the learning phase.

But Meta realized this is a huge waste of spend.

So instead, with Advantage+ campaigns, it actually skips the learning phase by using historical conversion data within the account to go after the highest-intent people possible.

That's why when you launch Advantage+ campaigns, performance starts really good and then dips off.

It capitalizes on all the high-intent audiences from the historical conversion data and targets those people first.

Whereas with ABOs, you'd typically see better performance over time because they'd start collecting conversion data and then learning.

The Advantage+ lifecycle:

Day 1-3: Great performance (hitting historical high-intent audiences)
Day 4-7: Performance dips (exhausted high-intent audiences)
Day 8+: Performance stabilizes (finding new audiences)

This is normal.

Don't panic and turn off campaigns when performance dips after the first few days.

It's just moving from high-intent to cold audiences.

The fix:

1. Expect the dip
2. Give campaigns 7-14 days to stabilize
3. Feed them with more creative to expand reach
4. Scale once stabilized, not during the high-intent phase

The lesson:

Advantage+ skips learning phase by using your account's historical data.

This is good (faster to profitability).

But it also means you'll see a performance dip as it exhausts high-intent audiences.

This is expected behavior.

Don't kill campaigns too early.

Let them stabilize.

The Meta “learning phase” won’t save your bad ads.

If you’re at 1x ROAS today…

You’re not magically hitting 3x because the status changes to “Active”.

This belief is burning cash in $5M–$500M Ecom accounts.

Here’s what founders get wrong:

They launch a new ad set.

Days 1–5:

* ROAS = 1.0
* Break-even = 3.0

Response?

“Let’s just wait until it exits learning.”

That’s not how it works.

What the learning phase actually does:

→ Reduces volatility
→ Improves delivery stability
→ Tightens audience matching

It does NOT:

→ Double your ROAS
→ Fix weak creative
→ Save bad economics

Before learning completes, results look like this:

Up.
Down.
Spike.
Drop.

After learning completes:

More consistency.

Less variance.

That’s it.

In most accounts, performance lift post-learning is:

* 0–10% typical
* 10–20% good
* 30% rare

If you need a 200% improvement to be profitable…

You don’t have a learning phase problem.

You have:

1. A creative problem
2. An offer problem
3. A margin problem
4. Or a targeting strategy issue

Here’s how to approach it properly:

1. Judge direction, not perfection, in first 72 hours
2. Compare CPA to your allowable, not just ROAS
3. If you’re 60–70% of target, it may stabilise in the range
4. If you’re 30% of target, kill it

Stop waiting for the algorithm to rescue you.

Meta optimises.

It doesn’t perform miracles.

If the foundations aren’t there…

The learning phase just stabilises losing money faster.

Most brands guess how many ads to launch each month.

That’s why creative output never matches revenue goals.

Here’s the equation you actually need:

Winning Ad Value × Hit Rate = Expected Value per Ad Launched

Break it down.

1. Winning Ad Value
   How much revenue does one true “winner” generate per month?

Not a decent ad.

A real scaler.

2. Hit Rate
   Out of every 10 ads you launch…
   How many become winners?

If 1 in 10 wins, your hit rate is 10%.

Example:

* A winning ad drives $100k/month.
* Your hit rate is 10%.

That means:

Each ad you launch is worth $10k in expected monthly revenue.

Now reverse it.

If you want to add $300k/month in new customer revenue…

You need to launch 30 ads.

Not 5.
Not “as many as we can manage.”

30.

This is how you remove emotion from creative strategy.

Here’s how to apply it this week:

1. Pull 6–12 months of Meta data.
2. Define what qualifies as a “winner”.
   (Spend threshold + CPA target.)
3. Calculate your real hit rate.
4. Work out average monthly revenue per winner.
5. Set a revenue target.
6. Reverse engineer required ad volume.

Then do one more thing most brands skip:

Back-propagate into diversity.

If you need 30 ads per month and your hit rate improves when you test:

* 3 hooks
* 3 angles
* 2 formats
* 2 audiences

You can plan that in advance.

Creative stops being random.

It becomes maths.

$5M brands ask:
“What should we test next?”

$50M brands ask:
“How many tests do we need to hit the number?”

Volume isn’t chaos.

It’s controlled probability.

Know your numbers.

Then scale your output to match your ambition.

If one ad is getting all the spend…

Stop trying to “fix” it.

Every eComm team has done this:

You launch 4 ads in one ad set.

Ad 1 gets 90% of the spend.

Ad 2, 3 and 4 get scraps.

And someone says:

“How do we force spend into the others?”

Here are your 4 options — ranked.

1. Make more creatives like the winner.
   Best option.

If Meta is pushing spend into one ad, it’s because it’s predicting higher return.

Instead of fighting it:

* Break down the winning ad.
* Identify the hook.
* Identify the angle.
* Identify the format.
* Recreate variations.

Scale what’s working.

2. Do nothing.
   Second best.

Meta’s distribution isn’t random.

95% of the time, if an ad isn’t getting spend, it’s because it won’t perform.

Trust the signal.

Optimizing for ego (“we spent time on that creative”) kills efficiency.

3. Use Creative Testing.
   Third.

Meta rolled this out recently.

You can select specific ads and enforce more even spend distribution.

Useful if:

* You’re validating messaging.
* You’re early in account learning.
* You need directional data.

But understand:

You are overriding the algorithm.

4. Duplicate the ad set and remove the winner.
   Worst option.

Yes, you’ll force spend through the others.

No, it won’t magically make them good.

If they were better, Meta would already be spending on them.

Here’s the mindset shift:

You’re not in the “fair distribution” business.

You’re in the profit business.

For brands doing $5M–$500M per year:

Creative volume > creative control.

When one ad wins:

* Don’t redistribute spend.
* Don’t overanalyze the losers.
* Double down on the signal.

Most scale comes from pressing advantages.

Not rescuing underperformers.

Every time you launch an ad set, all the spend goes into one ad.

But you spent all this time making these other ads.

How do we get spend into the others?

Four options:

1. Relaunch the ad set

Duplicate it and hope the next time spend goes into the other ads.

2. Do nothing

Just let it distribute how it's distributing.

Meta is probably better than you at knowing where to put spend.

3. Use the creative testing feature in Meta

Select your ads and set up a creative test that will force spend through the other ads.

4. Make new creative

What should you actually do?

Best option: Make new creative.

There's a reason Meta is distributing spend like this.

It's probably because this is the best-performing ad at this level of spend.

Second best: Do nothing.

Let Meta optimize.

Third option: Use the creative testing feature.

Last option (don't do this): Relaunch and duplicate.

It's going to do absolutely nothing.

It's a waste of time.

Why this matters:

Meta's algorithm is very good at finding the best-performing ads.

If all the spend is going to one ad, it's because that ad is winning.

Trying to force spend into underperforming ads won't help.

What to do instead:

1. Accept that one ad is winning
2. Analyze why (hook? messaging? format? avatar?)
3. Make new creative inspired by what's working
4. Launch new ads and let Meta test them

If the new ads are better, Meta will shift spend to them.

If they're not, Meta will keep spending on the winner.

Stop fighting the algorithm.

Work with it.

Make better creative.

That's the only lever that actually moves the needle.

Should you run interest or broad targeting in 2026?

It comes down to how machine learning inside Meta Ads actually works.

How Meta used to work:

They’d collect data and label you.

Engage with pet content?
You get tagged with the “pets” interest.

Simple. Keyword-based buckets.

That’s largely outdated.

What it moved to: vector-based targeting.

Sounds complex. It’s not.

Instead of assigning a word like “pets,” Meta assigns you a position in multi-dimensional space.

Think of it like coordinates.

If you engage with pet content, you get pushed slightly in that direction.
Engage again? You move further.

But this isn’t 3D space.

It’s hundreds or thousands of dimensions.

Every interaction pushes you slightly in different directions based on:

* Content type
* Frequency
* Recency
* Purchase behavior
* Demographics
* Device usage
* And countless other signals

Over time, people naturally cluster.

Groups form:

* Parents cluster together
* Young males cluster together
* High-income hobbyists cluster together

Everyone sits in a unique position, but similar people sit near each other.

So what’s the difference?

Interest targeting relies on old-school labels.
“Target people interested in pets.”

Broad targeting leverages this entire vector space.

When you launch broad, Meta shows ads across many clusters.
Then it quickly narrows into the pockets where purchases actually happen.

It’s not just asking:

“Do they like pets?”

It’s asking:

* How much do they like pets?
* What else do they like?
* What behaviors correlate with buying?
* What demographic + economic signals compound that?

Maybe your buyers aren’t just “pet lovers.”

Maybe they’re:
Pet lovers

* Aged 50–55
* 4 kids
* Top 10% household income
* Recently browsing eComm sites

Interest targeting can’t capture that nuance.

Broad can.

Why broad wins in 2026:

1. It finds buyers you’d never manually select
2. It models nuance, not just surface-level labels
3. It adapts in real time based on conversion data
4. It compounds signal density over time

Interest targeting = static labels.
Broad targeting = dynamic, multi-dimensional modeling.

In 2026, machine learning is better at finding your customer than you are.

Run broad.

Let the algorithm do its job.

How many creatives do you actually need per week to scale?

There's a good way to solve this:

1. Figure out your hit rate (your average rate of getting a high performer)
2. Figure out how much spend a high performer can hold on average
3. Then you've got your maths

Example:

You want to spend $10K/day.

You know your hit rate is X%.

You know each high performer can hold Y amount in spend.

You just back-propagate to the amount of ads you need.

If you can't be bothered doing that, here's an easy back-of-napkin number:

For every $1,000/day in ad spend, one new ad is generally going to get you in a really good position.

The formula:

Daily ad spend ÷ $1,000 = Number of new ads per day

Examples:

$10K/day → 10 new ads/day → 70 ads/week
$50K/day → 50 new ads/day → 350 ads/week
$100K/day → 100 new ads/day → 700 ads/week

This is a rough guideline.

Your actual number will depend on:
- Your creative hit rate (how many ads become winners)
- Your average spend per ad (how much each ad can hold)
- Your niche (some niches need more diversity)

But as a starting point, 1 ad per $1K/day is solid.

The lesson:

Most brands don't launch enough creative.

They're trying to scale to $10K/day with 5 new ads per week.

That's not enough.

You need 70 ads/week to sustain $10K/day.

If you're not launching enough creative, you'll hit a ceiling.

Scale your creative production with your ad spend.

Otherwise, you'll fatigue your ads faster than you can replace them.

The issue with CBOs when you don't have a lot of conversion data:

They over-prioritise soft metrics.

In fact, this is how the entire Meta algorithm works.

When you first launch a campaign or ad set, it's not actually optimising for purchases.

Because there are none. Or at least aren't a lot.

So instead, where there's a lot more signal in clicks and impressions.

Meta is going to prioritise all of these soft metrics - to decide how to distribute spend.

That's why if you're running an account with a very high average order value (so you don't have a lot of purchase volume turning through), and you run an ABO structure...

What ends up happening:

You might have 3 ad sets and all the spend just ends up going into the top ad set.

Not because it's driving the best financial outcome for you.

But because it simply has the highest CTR and the lowest CPC.

You have to be really careful about this, particularly when structuring the account.

The lesson:

Soft metrics get prioritised, at least within the first 1-7 days of something new getting launched.

This occurs under ad sets and under campaigns.

Be careful when:
- Running high AOV products (low conversion volume)
- Mixing images and videos in the same campaign
- Using CBOs with new ad sets

The fix:

1. Separate images and videos into different ad sets
2. Use ABOs for high AOV products (forces spend distribution)
3. Wait 14 days before judging based on soft metrics
4. Look at actual ROAS, not just CTR

Your best ad might be your worst problem.

It trains you to stop testing.

Then performance drops and you have no pipeline.

Here's the rule:

Winners get cloned into new angles immediately.

Same proof, new message, new buyer moment.

If one creative drives most of your revenue, you don't have a strategy.

You have a single point of failure.

Why this happens:

You find a winning ad.

It's crushing it.

3x ROAS, scaling well, everyone's happy.

So you stop testing.

Why would you? Things are working.

Then 6 weeks later, the ad fatigues.

Performance drops 40% overnight.

You scramble to find new creative.

But it takes 2-4 weeks to brief, produce, and test new ads.

You have a gap in performance.

Revenue drops.

Panic sets in.

The fix:

Treat every winning ad as a starting point, not a destination.

When you find a winner, immediately ask:

1. What angle is working? (Problem-solution? Transformation? Social proof?)
2. What audience is this speaking to?
3. What buyer moment is this hitting? (Awareness? Consideration? Intent?)

Then clone it:
- Same proof, different message
- Same message, different avatar
- Same avatar, different format
- Same format, different problem

This creates a pipeline of new creative before you need it.

The goal:

Never have one ad driving more than 30-40% of your revenue.

If you do, you're one fatigue event away from a crisis.

Diversify your creative portfolio like you'd diversify an investment portfolio.

Winners get cloned.

Immediately.

Always.

That's how you stay ahead of fatigue.

If you want to reposition a product…

Study what this collagen brand is doing.

1,200+ ads live.
58 videos.
87 images.
UGC.
High production.
Partnership ads.
Dynamic creative.

That’s not chaos.

That’s controlled angle testing.

They’re pushing multiple hooks:

* Weight loss.
* GLP-1 support.
* Skin + hair.
* Bloating.
* Energy.

Here’s the smart bit most brands miss:

Every major angle has its own landing page.

Click a beauty ad?

You land on a beauty page.

Click a GLP-1 ad?

You land on a GLP-1 specific page explaining support, FAQs, context.

That’s how repositioning actually works.

Because here’s the problem:

Collagen does 5,000 things.

If I click a “weight loss” ad…

And land on a generic collagen page talking about joints, hair, gut health and nails…

Continuity is dead.

Conversion drops.

Angle matching is the unlock.

Ad angle → Dedicated page → Reinforced belief.

That’s how you scale multi-angle creative.

Now the opportunity:

They’re running a 28-day challenge.

Great idea.

Challenges are strong because they:

* Add structure.
* Add community.
* Add urgency.
* Increase AOV via bundles.

But the execution matters.

If I land on the page and can’t clearly answer:

“What is this?”
“What do I get?”
“How do I win?”
“Why should I care?”

You’ll leak conversions.

Here’s the fix for any challenge funnel:

1. One clear headline.
   “Join the 28-Day X Challenge to achieve Y.”

2. Bullet the tangible benefits.

* Weekly trackers.
* Expert Q&A.
* Prize breakdown (clearly explained).
* Exact entry rules.

3. Visual roadmap.
   Week 1 → Week 2 → Week 3 → Outcome.

4. Tight FAQ that answers real objections.

Most $5M–$50M brands test more ads.

$50M–$500M brands test:

* More angles.
* More pages.
* More positioning narratives.

Creative volume gets attention.

Angle-to-page continuity gets scale.

If you’re repositioning a hero product this year…

Don’t just change the ad.

Change the destination.

In 2026, creative is the targeting.

But most brands are trying to learn creative the wrong way.

You can find:

* 100s of videos on account structure
* Deep dives on Shopify analytics
* Endless media buying breakdowns

But try finding a clear system for “how to make a good ad”.

You can’t.

Because most creative training is intuition-based.

You’ll hear things like:

“The hook just isn’t strong.”
“The body needs to flow better.”
“This angle feels off.”

If you’re analytical, that’s useless.

You don’t need vibes.

You need a framework.

If creative still feels random in your business, it’s not a talent issue.

It’s a lack of structure.

Here’s a simple 3-step framework we use to pressure test every ad:

1. Attention
2. Communication
3. Direction

That’s it.

Step 1: Does it capture attention?
If they don’t stop, nothing else matters.

Check:

* Is the first 2 seconds visually disruptive?
* Is the first line outcome-driven or pattern-breaking?
* Would you stop for this in your own feed?

Step 2: Does it clearly communicate the product?
Not the vibe. Not the lifestyle.

The product.

Can someone answer in 5 seconds:

* What is this?
* Who is it for?
* Why should I care?

If clarity is weak, conversion will be weak.

Step 3: Does it drive action?
Is there a clear next step?

Not vague.
Not implied.

Clear direction.

* Shop now
* Start your trial
* Get 20% off today

Most underperforming ads fail at one of these three.

Not because the team isn’t creative.

But because they never audited the ad against a framework.

If you’re running $5m–$500m per year, creative can’t be “gut feel”.

It needs to be systemized.

Next time an ad underperforms, don’t ask:

“Is this a bad concept?”

Ask:

Where did it break?
Attention?
Communication?
Direction?

Creative becomes scalable the moment it becomes measurable.

If your ad is “crushing it”…

But you have a big organic audience…

Be careful.

Here’s the influencer ad trap killing scale for $5M–$500M brands 👇

An ad gets:

* 5,000 likes
* Dozens of comments
* Strong blended ROAS

Looks like a winner.

But it’s not the ad.

It’s the audience.

What’s actually happening:

1. You target 100,000 people
2. 50% already know you
3. They convert at 2–3%
4. Cold traffic converts at 0.5% (or worse)

Example:

* $10k to warm → 10x ROAS
* $20k to cold → 1.5x ROAS

Blended result?

$30k spend
$130k revenue
4.3x ROAS

Everyone celebrates.

But you’re scaling the 1.5x.

Not the 4.3x.

The 4.3x is propped up by owned attention.

This is why influencer-led and organic-first brands struggle when moving to paid:

* The hook is the founder
* The creative lacks diversity
* The algorithm isolates into familiar audiences
* Cold never truly performs

Blended numbers lie.

Incrementality doesn’t.

What to do instead:

1. Segment warm vs cold properly
2. Make creative built for cold audiences
3. Expect cold ROAS to be materially lower
4. Run ongoing lift tests
5. Make scale decisions on incremental return, not blended

If you don’t know your incremental ROAS…

You don’t know your real ceiling.

And if you’re pushing spend based on blended MER…

You’re flying blind.

The influencer led brands that scale are the ones who understand where performance actually comes from.

Google+Meta Ads Expert | Top 1% Growth Marketer | DTC+Amazon growth advisor

I have experience growing multiple companies with Google and Meta Ads. I have a pretty diverse portfolio that includes: -Making brands millions of dollars with paid ads. Worked with niches including education, health &amp; wellness, startups, law, ecommerce, home services and more.-I have experience building paid media &amp; content based funnels that have grown multiple companies.-Scaling ad budgets profitably. Working on a wide range of projects ranging from funnel building to managing ad budgets up to $1M/month.-Helping multiple emerging brands/startups with over $200M in funding to build their growth engines. I’m always open to connect with people and explore opportunities. Most recently I've partnered with service brands, ecom brands and ad agencies as a white label paid media strategist.Feel free to set up a call here if you'd like to connect.https://calendly.com/feras-3/meeting2

Feras Khalbuss

Ad agencies looking for paid media support 👇

I’m exploring joining the right mission-driven team in a fractional capacity. 

Most recently I’ve been working on engagements with ad agencies as a fractional paid media director, account manager and creative strategist. 

I am available for projects including:
-Google and Meta Ads management for lead gen and ecommerce.
-Profitably scaling ad budgets.
-Troubleshooting lead quality or flatlining results.
-Getting a fresh pair of eyes on your accounts.
-Account management (front end), consulting or media buying

I’ve spent the last 12+ years managing, optimizing and scaling Google and Meta Ads accounts - from brand-new builds to 7, 8, and 9-figure programs across niches including home services, law, ecom, B2B, SaaS and high-ticket consumer. 

I’ve managed ad budgets ranging from $2K per month to $1M/month - working both on funnel-building projects and also managing ad accounts for big name brands. I’ve also managed and built high performing teams. 

I bring a lot of enthusiasm, passion, expertise and grit to any project I take on. 

The reason I like ad agency projects is the high sophistication and I always liked the community aspect working with bright people.

I have one slot open.

P.S. This is a song I wrote on guitar a couple years ago.

Google+ Meta Ads Expert | Available for hire to brands & agencies | Ask me about our quiz+growth funnels

You pushed more budget into your Google Ads account.

And somehow... leads got more expensive and worse quality.

And it feels like you took 3 steps backwards.

You're not imagining it. This happens to almost every lead gen account when they try to scale ad spend.

Here's why:

-Google's algorithm finds a sweet spot - a tight pool of high-intent users who convert well. 
-The moment you open up, it has to reach beyond that pool. 
-Into people who look similar, but aren't ready to buy.
-Google Ads strategy can change pretty quickly when the directive becomes scaling while keeping the same efficiency.

And what ends up happening is a lot of structural and infrastructure issues come up:
-Lack of transparency of what keywords actually lead to closed sales.
-Not understanding which campaigns have the most potential to actually scale.
-Understanding what is and is not a rabbit hole in the age of AI.

A lot of times ad agencies will have a lot of experience with managing ad accounts with a consistent ad budget.

But when it comes time to do a heavier lift like come up with a scaling strategy to 3x ad spend profitably.

They show the same patterns. Great at pitch decks and showmanship but bad at execution.

This exposes flaws in THEIR thinking and ability to pivot.

Many ad agencies have an incentive to have a volume type of model.

Sign as many clients as possible with their fancy logos.

And upsell - without having to go that extra mile.

While delegating your account to junior employees without that strategic acumen.

If you’re not impressed with your current ad agency.

And they seem to be a bit well checked out.

I have capacity for auditing 2 extra Google Ads accounts for service+ecom brands.

Up to 85% of ad agencies are struggling to hire the right paid media strategists.

For smaller teams, one wrong hire doesn't just sting - it can create a ripple effect.
Salary, recruiter fees, lost performance, client churn. 

And because one strategist touches multiple accounts, the ripple moves fast and quietly until it doesn't.

Here are the most common speedbumps smaller agencies hit - and why they don't have to be yours.

1. Senior full-time talent at a junior price point - it doesn't exist:
-You need someone who can own strategy and manage real spend. 
-But that budget doesn't fit a 10-person shop. So agencies settle, performance flatlines, and often the founder has to still manage the media buyer and accounts.
-With fractional, you get the senior thinking without the senior salary. It's handled.

2. The best people aren't waiting for your job posting:
-A-players have options, including going out on their own. 
-They're freelancing, building their own thing, unbothered. 
-If your opportunity doesn't genuinely excite them, they'll stay independent — and honestly, good for them.
-Fractional is the compelling option. Senior talent, your terms, no convincing required. It's handled.

3. Building campaigns and strategizing them are not the same skill:
-Most agencies hire strong builders and quietly call them strategists. 
-They're not the same thing. Knowing how to set up a campaign is not the same as knowing why it should exist, how it should grow, or what it actually means for the business.
Fractional brings real strategic ownership — not just tidy execution. It's handled.

4. The role has quietly become five roles in one:
-Paid media in 2026 is analytics, creative strategy, attribution, testing frameworks, and client communication — all in one seat, all at once. 
-Finding that full-time A-player, at a price a small agency can actually afford, is a lot to ask.

Fractional is built for exactly this. One engagement, full capability. It's handled.

Stop gambling on full-time hires.

Instead invest in senior thinking, real ownership, cross-discipline experience - without the permanent headcount. 

It's handled.

I've managed over $20M in ad spend and multiple successful agency teams.

Somewhere in all of that I discovered a hidden X factor - it has nothing to do with SOPs, strategy, or platforms.

It's the difference between chaos and ease.

This surprised me as an analytical nerd. I live in ad interfaces, love solving problems, built complex SOPs, and spent north of $15K on Upwork hiring bright people.

But I was cocky. Short-sighted. Unshakable self-belief is a double-edged sword - it's enough to get in your own way.

I've been humbled a lot. Ego, know-it-all energy, preventable mistakes.

It almost always came down to ignoring my gut.
Every time I ignored that feeling, it showed up in my team.

Alignment and trusting your gut are the most overlooked skills in the age of AI.

If someone checks every box but something feels off - that feeling is a computer system built on thousands of years of evolution. Claude and ChatGPT can't see it no matter what you feed them.

Always trust your gut. At least enough to dig in.

In 2026 people crave more than a paycheck - they want mission and purpose. A team of mercenaries is a fundamental value mismatch.

Ask yourself: how do you feel when someone brings up your team or a specific team member? Stress is a signal. Alignment is usually the hidden cause.

Teams in alignment communicate cleanly, own their lanes, and move together. It's not something you can optimize for analytically - it requires intuition built over years.

It's the feel of the room. Every time.

Made a few hiring gaffes? Forgive yourself. Own it. Pivot.
These 3 words can set you free:
"I was wrong."

P.S. Credit to Bobby Bazini for the song "Turn Blue."

He hasn't taken a proper vacation in years.

One of my clients - an ad agency founder works 80 hour weeks.

The truth is that in many ad agencies in growth mode the founder has to be heavily embedded in day to day operations to keep things afloat.

But there are 2 layers to growth mode. Sales and fulfillment+operations. 

Which means there is no shortage of speed bumps:
	-Checking the work of team members.
	-Responding to weekend client slack pings.
	-Firefighting to keep things afloat.
	-Hiring new team members due to bad fit hires.

They have a world-class service and are getting a ton of new business+leads but they don’t have the margins for another full time hire.

Larger ad agencies budget a 6-month net loss on every inexperienced hire. They can absorb it. 

You can't.

You’re running an execution based business not a coaching program for media buyers.

Small/medium agencies don’t have that luxury.

And playing “Indeed or Upwork roulette” is simply not tentable in 2026:
	-There is no time to “test “people and partnerships where 50%+ of tests fail.
	-One bad egg hire can stain the entire team dynamic and cause duplicate work.
	-Many A-players would rather work for a larger headcount agency with benefits.
	-Many people are great at being charming in interviews but subpar at execution.

There’s another way.

Instead of trying to work more - just give up control.

Picture yourself at the beach drinking your favorite beverage and unwinding.

Because you gave up control and hired operators who will “handle it”.

And hired a fractional account manager+ paid media strategist.

You get the value of a full-time hire but without the hand holding.

Most of my engagements start out as 1-2 simple test projects and evolve from there.

We were working harder than ever.
And it felt like nothing was working...

If you've launched or relaunched paid ads and the growth isn't matching the effort you're putting in.

this can be one of the most stressful experiences - especially in lead gen, where a single metric shift can be the difference between bleeding money and turning a profit.

My advice: trust the process and your gut.

I've worked on more GTM and ad funnel rebuild projects than I can count. 
And too many people gloss over the ugly duckling phase.

It can take a crazy amount of patience, and it can feel like nothing is happening.

It can happen to anyone - even mature brands with strong product-market fit.

Here are 5 tips to get to the other side:

1. Approach problem-solving with neutrality:
-Positive thinking helps sometimes - but it can also become a blind spot if you're putting your head in the sand.
-If you're only focusing on the upside, you might miss what's actually in front of you.
-Detach from the outcome and look at the data like a stranger would.

2. Be open to pivoting:
-Sometimes one copy change or adjustment separates the ugly duckling phase from profitability.
-If you've been swimming upstream for months, ask whether the issue is execution or something more basic like your offer’s clarity.

3. Growth can be a mental and internal game too:
-You have to embrace the journey.
-Sometimes you'll be tested and filled with self-doubt: “What if the product isn’t good enough?”
-Usually you begin to embody a new version of yourself who can face any challenge.

4. Raise your standards:
-In life we get what we accept, and that ties directly to our standards.
-Benchmark your performance against your industry, not just yourself.
-Sometimes zooming out reveals the real problem isn't the ads - it's something higher up the chain.
-Sometimes this involves hard decisions like pivoting teams.

5. Own your bottlenecks:
-There is almost always a quantifiable constraint that, if solved, will make your ads print money.
-Conversion rate, CPMs, or CPCs at the top of funnel?
-Lead quality downstream?
-Messaging that's creating confusion instead of clarity?


Stepping back - even briefly can help you return with fresh eyes and spot something you missed.

The closer you are to the problem, the harder it is to see it clearly.

At the end of the day, if you can build the problem you can build the solution.

You got this.

P.S. This is a song I recorded with a friend on guitar years ago.

P.P.S. If you’re a service brand spending $10K/month or more on Meta or Google Ads but the ads aren't quite working - feel free to shoot me a DM.

I looked at the Google Ads change history and almost had a panic attack.. 👇

What happens when your Google Ads account hasn't been touched in weeks?

This happened back in my in office agency days in NYC. I was working with a big name brand.

And a junior employee was managing the UK campaigns. 

Evidently he was checked out.

I checked the change logs since he was a newer hire and my stomach dropped to the ground.

Zero changes in weeks. No tests no basic budget changes.

He ended up overspending for the month and the agency had to cover those costs.

I've seen this happen many times:
-A lack of strategy, proactive testing and TLC for Google Ads accounts.
-Someone is a good presenter but actually has a shoddy growth strategy.
-Google Ads accounts that are just run largely on autopilot.

AI is here not as a replacement to strategy but as 1 of hundreds of tools in a toolkit.

If you're a service brand spending $50K to $300K/month on Google Ads and not impressed with your agency - or worse yet being burned by an ad agency or flaky freelancer.

You want to ask yourself these questions.
-Is there a clear written plan of what is being tested in our accounts?
-Are there clear action items to address common bottlenecks like lead quality?
-Is the current strategy in line with your 2026 business goals?

I'm offering a free audit to brands that are looking to identify low hanging fruit and are keen to grow in 2026.

Feel free to shoot me a DM.

Paid Media+Funnels Expert | Available for hire to brands & agencies | Ask me about our quiz+growth funnels

Being ghosted, rejected, or watching a deal fall through is painful. 

Especially when you're stepping out of your comfort zone. But in sales and job hunting, there's a second side to the equation.

Most of prospecting is about impulse control. Detaching from expectations. 

Recognizing that sometimes when something doesn't work out it's for the best.

When you zoom out, rejection can actually be a GOOD thing. Here's why:

1. The right people respond when they're ready. A DM that gets left on read today is a pipeline opportunity tomorrow. Many services are only relevant when someone is in-market. Timing isn't rejection.

2. Your best clients or ideal job don't need to be chased. Your real ICP is someone where conversation happens naturally. There are dozens of ideal clients or jobs looking for YOU. 

3. Success is on the other side of fear. All it takes is one yes. If you believe in your product or service, you don't need external validation - you know you will ultimately succeed.

4. Not everyone is going to like you. You're not for everyone. The sooner you accept that, the faster you find the people you actually are for. You can't get rejected if you don't reject yourself.

5. Your "dream" client or job may not be the right fit. What looks perfect from the outside often isn't. The door that just closed might be saving you from something that would've cost you far more than it was worth.

If you're putting yourself out there and hearing silence. Keep going. 

You might even want to throw in the towel.

Don't. There are an infinite number of ways to win.

You got this.

"He just needs more time to ramp up." 
-Ad agency owner w/ a new inexperienced hire

You wouldn't hire a head chef and then stand over their shoulder telling them how to season every dish…..

But what if the output of the food was consistently subpar and customers were complaining?

I used to binge hours of Gordon Ramsay watching him give valid criticisms to restaurants that were looking to level up.

And watch chefs get defensive on feedback they got directly from customers.
“I just call it as I see it” is what he’d say.

And it reminded me a bit of the ad agency model. You promise clients the moon but reality kicks in.
	-Lackluster results from unmotivated media buyers.
	-Lack of strategic acumen and a proactive plan.
	-Having to pay back clients for preventable ad spend mistakes.
	-Ad accounts that haven’t been touched in weeks or worse.

That's exactly what agency owners do with the wrong media buyer.
-You hired them to get GREAT results, run campaigns. Instead you're reviewing every audience. 
-Rewriting their ad copy. Double-checking their bid strategy. Explaining why ROAS matters.
-You didn't hire a strategist. You hired a VA who needs a strategy.

In the agency space how you show up the first 60 days determines everything in a client relationship. 

That's it. 60 days is all it takes for them to decide to go to a bigger agency with a more robust team.

The client is watching everything. Are results trending? Is communication sharp? Does this feel like the right agency?

And if your media buyer is still "ramping up" during that window - you're not developing talent. 

You're burning trust with a client who's already shopping for your replacement.

I've been there. I made excuses for a hire who couldn't perform without me holding his hand on every decision.
-"He just needs more time to ramp up." 
-"He's got potential." 
-"Every new hire has a learning curve."

Meanwhile my clients didn't care about his learning curve. They cared about getting world class results - more leads and revenue.

By the time I admitted it wasn't working, the damage was done and I was burned out.

That experience changed how I think about fulfillment entirely.

Instead of hiring someone who needs to be spoonfed strategy and trained on your playbook - partner with someone who's already written their own.

Fractional media strategists with 10+ years in the agency model. No ramp-up. No hand-holding. No praying they figure it out before your client walks.

Your clients gave you 60 days. Don't spend them babysitting.

Why fractional paid media hires sometimes just makes sense. 👇

Agencies with lean teams have to be ruthlessly selective about who they bring on. Especially if they're making their first few full-time hires.

When I made my first full-time hire it was one of the most stressful times in my life.

And even though I did everything right on paper - called references, asked detailed questions, trusted my intuition - I got burned.
A few months in, the feedback and data started coming in.

The employee made a ton of mistakes on accounts. My team and I spent hours fixing errors. The chemistry just wasn't there. And it was Q4 with things ramping up so replacing them wasn't an option.

I was horrified.
What saved me was that I already had a white label ad agency as a second operator on my team. That's why I believe in this model.

One wrong hire can derail an entire year's growth plan - especially if you have to part ways on month 5 or 6.

Hiring is no walk in the park even AFTER the offer is made:
-You can afford a junior salary but you need someone who can hit the ground running. 
-The ones who can do the job want $80K+. 
-The ones in your budget need to be trained from scratch.
 -The best candidates are fielding offers from bigger agencies with higher salaries.

With media buyers you either have a great fit and operator or you don't. And you won't know which one you got until they're on payroll managing real client money.

Wrong fit? It's not just their salary. It's months of training, hours reviewing their work, and client results suffering while they ramp up. And having to start the process over again with the same risks.

That takes 3+ months. If they ever get there. 

A fractional partner fixes that overnight.
-Senior-level execution without the full-time overhead.
-New capabilities - like Google Ads when you've only run Meta.
-Better results so you can increase your client retention rates and hit your growth goals.

If you’re an ad agency founder and sales is outpacing your capacity for fulfillment. 

Or you’re not impressed with your current paid media team - I have 3 slots for:
	-White label ad account management for Google Ads+Meta Ads. 
	-Account management roles (front end)
	-Consulting/auditing ad accounts that are struggling or helping build systems.

One wrong decision can cost agency owners their freedom, joy and peace of mind.

All of your peers’ agencys are thriving and growing. 

While you are sitting there cancelling dates with your wife so you can fix coordinator errors caused by a new hire that was supposed to be thriving.

Actually it can cost a lot more than that:
	-Hours spent doing duplicate work for multipel team members.
	-Team morale and dynamic.
	-Your entire 2026 growth goals.
	-Client retention rate.

All because you hired an inexperienced strategist that spends 3 hours a day on TikTok instead of making optimizations to client accounts while you work 60 hour weeks.

If you’re in a small to medium headcount agency the wrong hire can be the difference between success and failure.

Between you having 2026 in the palm of your hands - and things being utter chaos.

I know because I was in that same position. And I had my head in the sand when I realized I made the wrong paid media hire.
	-”He just needs time and training to ramp up.”
	-”He’s got a great attitude it will work out.”
	-”It’s standard that it takes 4-5 months for people to hit their stride.”

Only thing is that he was making coordinator mistakes in an ad agency that wasn’t built for that model.

It was built on everyone being a self-sufficient operator that checked their own work.

And his performance got worse not better.

I felt run down, disappointed and like a failure at the time.

Knowing I would have to run that exhausting hiring process all over again.

And the risk was the same: You find someone who is great at talking but bad at executing.

If you’re an ad agency owner sometimes humble pie will set you free.

If you’re sick and tired of working with full-time hires who need to be spoon-fed strategy.

While your clients complain about results and leave to work with BIGGER ad agencies with a larger headcount.

There’s another way.
-You hire fractional paid media strategists that know strategy like the back of their hand.
-They know the ad agency model based on over a decade of experience.
-All parties are incentivized to go above and beyond to get stellar results.
-Instead of having to be a dignified babysitter you can finally take a step back and focus on sales.
-Your clients LOVE their results and actually talk to their friends and send you referrals. 

If you’re sick and tired of babysitting media buyers - we have 3 spots open for fractional paid media strategists.

P.S. Credit to Definition and Natascha Polke for the song “After Rain Comes Sun.”

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Feras Khalbuss

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreFeras Khalbuss's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Feras Khalbuss

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);}Nathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreFeras Khalbuss's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance