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.

Tomasz Sledz

Running ads that 10x your business | Helping brands with media buying | Spent 20 000 000$+ on ads. | Driving results that Soar | DM for a 1:1 Power Hour | Business Consultancy | Funnel Optimization | Paid Social Ads

Your ads are spending.
But your results are stuck.

Read this. ↓

You launch a few new creatives.
They work for a week.
Then CAC climbs, ROAS drops, and scaling breaks again.

So you do what most brands do:
You blame the media buyer.
You tweak targeting.
You "optimize" the account.

But the real issue is simple:
You do not test enough new angles, fast enough.

You have spend.
You have a product that sells.
You just do not have a creative system that keeps performance alive while you scale.

That's what we build.

I'm Tomasz, founder of Impact Media.
We craft research-based direct-response ads, both video and static, built to scale.

What we install:

✅ Deep customer research and angle mining
✅ High-volume creative production (often 100+ ads per month)
✅ Fast testing system to find winners
✅ Scale plan that keeps CAC under control
✅ Funnel and offer fixes when ads need it

Who we've worked with:

Icybear Dental • BioID Health • Dr. Forbes Riley • Crucial Four • Pure Over • Olive + Crate • Star Magic Healing • Awkward Media • 1FIT • Jope • Munera Ventures • Pela Terra • Absolute Dogs • A-OK9 • 3Y Health • Energized Health • EcoWise Supplements • Cadence • Secret Element • Seller Champ

(And other 8-9 figure business covered under NDA)

What this looks like in the real world:

→ 234 ads launched in 6 weeks
→ $50,254 spent
→ $208,265 generated
→ Stock sold out, 1,000+ new customers in a month

If your brand is doing real revenue, but ads are not scaling, send me a DM with "SCALE".

I'll show you the exact gaps in your creative system and what to build next.

Chief Marketing Officer

R.I.P creative strategists. Claude Cowork just killed the job.

I've tested every AI on Meta ad creative. GPT-5. Gemini 3. Llama. None of them got it.

Then Claude Cowork dropped. And everything changed.

I spent 12 hours building a workflow specifically for Meta ads. Fed it $25M worth of winning creative data. Tested it against my best-performing campaigns.

The results:

→ 50+ research-backed ad concepts in under 60 minutes
→ Hook variations that match proven scroll-stoppers
→ Angles mapped to every awareness stage
→ Creative briefs my team can execute same-day

This isn't AI writing generic copy.
This is a system that understands why your ads work and builds more of them.

What used to take my creative strategist a full week now takes an hour. And the output is better.

For brands spending $50K-$500K/month on Meta:

- Your creative team is guessing which angles to test
- Your winners die and nobody knows why
- You're paying $8-15K/month for a strategist who can't keep up with volume

Claude Cowork fixes all of it.

I packaged the entire workflow into 61 copy-paste prompts:

✅ The Ad Concept Generator (50+ ideas in one session)
✅ The Hook Pattern Extractor (reverse-engineers your winners)
✅ The Awareness Stage Mapper (right message, right audience)
✅ The Creative Brief Builder (hand it straight to your team)
✅ The Fatigue Predictor (knows when ads will die before they do)

This took me $25M in spend to figure out. Yours for free.

Comment "COWORK" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

♻️ Repost and I'll include the full case study showing how this system generated 100+ winning concepts in 30 days.

I scale 7 to 8-figure brands with ads | $30M+ managed | 100+ creatives per month | Scale to $1M/month spend

I've managed $30M+ in Meta ad spend and built a dashboard that tells you if your creative can scale.

Most brands don't know they're dying until ROAS tanks.

The pattern is always the same:
- Creative fatigue kills the account
- Nobody tracks it
- By the time you notice, you've burned 2-3 weeks of budget

So I built the system I wish I had.

Paste 14 numbers from Ads Manager. Takes 5 minutes.

The dashboard auto-calculates 25+ metrics and tells you exactly where you're bleeding:

→ Creative fatigue rate (are your ads dying faster than you're replacing them?)
→ Top 3 concentration risk (one fatigue spike away from disaster)
→ Hook decay rate (catches fatigue before ROAS drops)
→ Creative runway (how many weeks until your winners die?)
→ Launch deficit (are you killing more ads than you're launching?)
→ Win rate trend (is your creative research getting stale?)

Green, yellow, red scoring. You see your creative health at a glance.

For brands spending $50K-$500K/month on Meta:
- Your media buyer is reacting to problems instead of predicting them
- Your creative team doesn't know which ads are about to die
- You're scaling into fatigue without realizing it

This dashboard fixes all of it.

Benchmarks from $30M+ in spend built in. Yours for free.

Comment "HEALTH" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

♻️ Repost and I'll include the video walkthrough showing exactly how to use it.

I've run ads for Acquisition.com Portfolio and other 8-9 figure businesses. Most brands I talk to still don't understand this one thing:

Creative is targeting.

Meta's algorithm handles audiences now. Your job is feeding it the right creative for each awareness stage.

Most brands blast the same ad to everyone. Cold traffic, warm traffic, retargeting. Same hook. Same angle. Same offer.

Then they wonder why CPAs keep climbing.

Eugene Schwartz figured this out 60 years ago. 5 levels of awareness. 5 different messages.

→ Unaware: They don't know they have a problem
→ Problem Aware: They know the problem, not the solution
→ Solution Aware: They know solutions exist, not yours
→ Product Aware: They know you, haven't bought yet
→ Most Aware: They just need the right offer

Your static ads, UGC, VSLs should strategically map to these stages.

I've managed $30M+ in Meta spend. The brands that scale past $100K/month all have this dialed.

The ones stuck at $20-50K? They're running the same 3 ads to everyone and hoping something sticks.

I put together the exact framework I use on day 1 with every client.

The "Andromeda" Creative Strategy Framework includes:

✅ The awareness stage breakdown (know exactly which ads to run where)
✅ Creative mapping template (match ad types to buyer stages)
✅ The research-first methodology behind $30M in spend
✅ Why "creative is targeting" and how to use it

Comment "CREATIVE" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

♻️ Repost and I'll include the full strategic memo I give to new clients.

🚨 We're hiring a Full-Time Creative Strategist at Impact Media

We're a performance marketing agency that's manage over $1 mil+ monthly in Meta ad spend for 7-8 figure brands 

We work across e-commerce (D2C), B2B, and lead generation, so you won't be stuck in one niche. Real budgets, variety, and creative freedom to test at scale.

This is a full-time, fully remote position. Not a freelance gig.

What you'll actually do day-to-day:

Research (40%) - Use tools like Foreplay and Meta Ad Library to find winning angles and concepts, then turn that into actionable creative briefs.

Copywriting (30%) - Write high-converting ad scripts for video and static ads across multiple clients. You'll use AI tools to move faster, not as a crutch, but as a multiplier.

Visual Direction (15%) - Develop the look and feel of ads and brief designers and editors on how a concept should come to life.

Creative Collaboration (15%) - Work closely with our Creative Director and brief the production team directly when needed. Clear vision and sharp feedback matter here.

Who we're looking for:
- 1-2+ years of hands-on Meta ads experience (non-negotiable)
- Strong understanding of direct response, you know what makes people stop scrolling and click
- Experience writing video scripts and static ad copy
- Comfortable using AI tools daily to research, write, and iterate faster
- Familiar with Monday.com and Slack
- Perfect English communication skills
- Detail-oriented and self-driven
- Preferably based in or near CET timezone, but open to strong international candidates

The logistics: 
✅ Full-time only, no freelancers or part-time 
✅ Fully remote 
✅ Daily team sync at mid-day CET 

We plan ahead and get tasks to you at the start of each week, but flexibility is essential. Clients send feedback, things shift, and we need someone with full-time availability to move quickly when that happens.

Why this role:
- Lean, high-performing team. 
- 1000 creatives tested per month. 
- Real budgets.
- Full autonomy over your work.

How to apply:

Connect with me and send a DM with:
1. Your portfolio or ad examples
2. A summary of your relevant experience
3. Why you'd be a great fit
4. Your salary expectations

I'll be reviewing applications personally and scheduling calls with the right candidates.

If you don't have Meta ads experience, this isn't the right fit, but feel free to tag someone who'd be perfect for it 👇

I've spent $30M+ on Meta ads. I just built a creative scaling calculator that gives you my creative volume formula for scaling past $100K/month:

Most brands hit $50K/month and crash.

The pattern is always the same:
- 5 ads carrying the whole account
- No creative pipeline behind them
- ROAS dies and nobody saw it coming

I tracked every failure pattern across 200+ accounts. Built the math into one sheet. You just paste 8 numbers from Ads Manager which takes 3 minutes.

Here's what it spit out:

→ Your exact creative burn rate per week
→ How many ads you need launching monthly to stay alive
→ Which ad formats are fatiguing 40% faster than others
→ Your concentration risk score (most brands score "critical")
→ The spend ceiling your current creative volume supports
→ When your next ROAS drop will hit based on decay curves

Green. Yellow. Red. One glance.

Benchmarks from $30M+ in spend baked in.

I packaged the whole thing:

→ The calculator spreadsheet
→ My creative volume formula for scaling past $100K/month

Comment "SCALE" and I'll send it over.

We need to be connected for me to DM you.

We produce 100-170 ads per month. Most inhouse teams struggle to get 10 out the door.

The difference isn't talent. It's workflow.

I've watched brands hire great editors, great strategists, great media buyers. Then lose weeks to revision cycles, unclear briefs, and miscommunication.

One video takes 5 rounds of feedback. By the time it's approved, the trend is dead.

We fixed this with a 12-person team structure that syncs strategists, editors, and media buyers into one machine.

The system:

→ Strategists brief with research, not opinions
→ Editors know exactly what "good" looks like before they start
→ Media buyers flag winners and losers in real-time
→ Feedback loops are 2 rounds max, not 5

At scale, creative velocity is the only competitive advantage. The algorithm rewards volume. The brands testing 15-20 ads per week win. The ones testing 3-4 fall behind.

For brands spending $50K-$500K/month:

- Your team is slow because the process is broken
- Your editors are guessing what you want
- Your strategists aren't connected to performance data

This workflow fixes all of it.

I packaged our entire production system:

✅ Organizational chart (who does what, when)
✅ The feedback loop SOP (2 rounds max)
✅ Brief templates that eliminate guesswork
✅ How to sync strategy, editing, and media buying

Comment "WORKFLOW" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

♻️ Repost and I'll include the exact brief template we use for every ad.

We tested 600 research based ads in 6 months for one client.

(gemini 3.1 made it possible)

Star Magic needed volume. Not 10 ads a month. Not 20. Hundreds.

The old way: hire UGC creators, wait 2 weeks for deliverables, hope something works, repeat.

The new way: use Gemini 3 to generate scripts, angles, and hooks based on what's already performing. Then hand creators a brief they can't mess up.

The system:

→ Feed Gemini your top 10 performing ads
→ Extract the hook patterns, emotional triggers, and CTAs that work
→ Generate 50+ script variations in an hour
→ Brief creators with research-backed scripts, not vibes

We maintained profitable acquisition for 6 months straight. 2,941 new customers. High subscription retention.

Most brands can't produce enough creative to feed the algorithm. They test 5 ads, find 1 winner, ride it until it dies, then scramble.

This system keeps the pipeline full.

For brands spending $50K-$500K/month:
- Your UGC process is too slow
- Your creators are guessing what to say
- You're not testing enough volume to find consistent winners

I packaged the entire Gemini 3 UGC workflow:

✅ The prompt sequence for script generation
✅ Hook pattern extraction framework
✅ Creator brief template (research-backed, not vibes)
✅ The 100-ad testing calendar we used

Comment "UGC" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

A clinic owner told me: "We get 200 leads a month. Maybe 15 book. I don't understand."

I looked at their funnel. The problem was obvious within 5 minutes.

Their ads were generating curiosity. Not commitment.

People clicked because the hook was interesting. They landed on a page that looked fine. They filled out a form because it was easy.

Then they ghosted.

No call booked. No appointment scheduled. Just a CRM full of names that went nowhere.

This was BioID Health. Stuck at 120 patients per month for over a year. Spending £5K/month on ads that filled a pipeline nobody could close.

I've managed $30M+ in Meta spend. I've seen this pattern kill more clinics and high-ticket businesses than bad targeting ever has.

The fix wasn't the ads. It was the script.

We rewrote everything from the hook to the follow-up:

→ Ad scripts that pre-qualify before the click (filter out tire-kickers early)
→ Landing page headlines that match the ad promise exactly
→ Form questions that create micro-commitments
→ Follow-up sequences that assume the sale, not beg for it

Same clinic. Same offer. Same budget.

120 patients became 500+. £5K spend became £40K. Because now the leads actually wanted to show up.

Most businesses optimize the wrong thing. They tweak audiences, test placements, adjust bids.

The script is what converts. Everything else is noise.

I put together the exact scripts and headlines we used:

✅ Ad script swipe file (the copy that scaled 4x)
✅ Landing page headline templates
✅ The pre-qualification framework
✅ Follow-up sequence that converts form fills to bookings

Comment "SCRIPTS" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

I watched a brand burn $47,000 in 3 weeks because of one hook.

They had a winner. 4.2 ROAS. Scaling beautifully.

Then day 4 hit. ROAS dropped to 2.8. Day 7, it was 1.6. By day 12, they were losing money on every sale.

The founder called me panicking. "The algorithm broke. Meta hates us. What happened?"

Nothing happened. The hook just died.

I've managed $30M+ in Meta spend. I've seen this exact pattern hundreds of times.

Your best-performing ad isn't actually your best ad. It's just the hook that resonated with the warmest slice of your audience.

Meta shows it to the easiest buyers first. They convert. You celebrate.

Then it expands to colder people. Same hook. Same angle. Same words.

But these people need a different entry point. Your hook doesn't hit the same for them.

The ad isn't broken. The hook is exhausted.

That brand I mentioned? We took over and launched 91 new ads in 3 weeks. Same product. Same offer. Different hooks.

→ Pain hooks for people who know they're struggling
→ Desire hooks for people chasing a result
→ Proof hooks for skeptics who need evidence
→ Contrarian hooks for people who think they've tried everything

One hook fatigues. The next picks up. Account stays stable.

They went from bleeding $47K to $180K profitable months. Not because we found one magic ad. Because we built a system that never runs dry.

I put together the exact hook bank we use internally:

✅ 50 proven hooks across static, UGC, and B-roll
✅ Hook categories mapped to awareness stages
✅ The research process for finding fresh angles
✅ How we launch 91+ ads in 3 weeks without burning out

Comment "HOOKS" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

We took a client's CPL from €59 to €19 in 30 days. No budget increase. No new audiences.

Just funnel friction.

Most high-ticket lead gen campaigns bleed money in places nobody checks.

The landing page asks for too much information. The hook attracts the wrong people. The form fields kill conversion. The follow-up sequence is too slow.

Every friction point costs you leads. At €50-80 per lead, that adds up fast.

This was a German SaaS brand in the legal space. Smart team, good product, terrible unit economics.

We audited the funnel and found 4 friction points killing their CPL:

→ Form had 7 fields (cut to 3)
→ Hook attracted tire-kickers (rewrote for qualified buyers)
→ Landing page buried the offer (moved it above the fold)
→ No urgency in the CTA (added scarcity)

Same spend. 3x more leads. Profitable acquisition in 30 days.

For brands running high-ticket lead gen:

- Your CPL is high because your funnel has friction
- Your sales team is drowning in unqualified leads
- You're optimizing ads when you should be optimizing the page

I put together the exact audit framework we used:

✅ The "Funnel Friction" audit checklist
✅ 3 script templates for high-ticket lead ads
✅ Form field optimization guide
✅ The landing page fixes that dropped CPL 67%

Comment "LEADGEN" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

♻️ Repost and I'll include the before/after breakdown of the campaign.

We scaled PureOver from $250/day to $1,400/day spend. $208,265 in 6 weeks.

Most brands try to scale and ROAS tanks the next day.

The pattern is always the same:
- They find a winner
- They increase budget
- Performance crashes
- They pull back and start over

PureOver was stuck in this loop for months before we took over.

The fix wasn't complicated. It was systematic.

Week 1-2: Creative volume. We launched 15+ new ads to find 2-3 more winners.
Week 3-4: Offer testing. Same product, different positioning. Bundles, bonuses, urgency.
Week 5-6: Scale the winners. Increase budget 20% every 3 days on ads with stable ROAS.

The 2-3-4 rule:

→ 2 weeks to build creative depth (you can't scale 1 winner)
→ 3 offers tested (same product, different angles)
→ 4 winning ads minimum before scaling spend

Most brands try to scale with 1-2 ads. That's not scaling. That's gambling.

For brands spending $50K-$100K/month:
- You're scaling too fast with too few winners
- Your offer isn't strong enough for cold traffic
- You're optimizing campaigns when you should be optimizing creative velocity

I put together the exact system we used:

✅ 1-page launch checklist
✅ The 6-week testing calendar
✅ Creative volume benchmarks by spend level
✅ Offer stack framework for cold traffic

Comment "SCALE" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

We audited a brand spending $200K/month. They had 47 ads running. Only 3 were profitable.

The other 44 were bleeding money while nobody noticed.

This is concentration risk. And it's killing more accounts than bad creative ever has.

Here's what I see in almost every audit:

- 70%+ of spend going to 2-3 ads
- The "winners" are actually fatiguing
- Dozens of underperformers draining budget quietly
- No system to catch it before ROAS crashes

At $200K/month, you're pushing $6,500/day through Meta. If 90% of your ads are underwater, you're burning thousands daily on creative that stopped working weeks ago.

Most brands check ROAS at the campaign level. That hides everything.

You need to audit at the ad level. Weekly.

The 3-point audit we run:

→ Spend concentration: Are 2-3 ads carrying the whole account?
→ Efficiency decay: Which ads dropped 20%+ in the last 7 days?
→ Dead weight: Which ads have spent $500+ with zero conversions?

One audit. 15 minutes. Catches problems before they cost you $50K.

I put together the exact framework we use:

✅ The ad-level audit checklist (15 minutes weekly)
✅ Concentration risk calculator
✅ Efficiency decay tracker
✅ The "kill or scale" decision matrix

Comment "ROAS" and I'll send it over.

(We need to be connected for me to DM you)

I've reviewed over 200 ad accounts.

Brands stuck at $50K/month almost always have the same problem. And they're blaming the wrong thing.

They think it's targeting. It's not.

It's creative velocity. And it's only half the equation.

At $50K/month you're pushing roughly $1,600/day through Meta.

The algorithm needs fresh creative to keep finding new buyers. Most brands launch 5 to 10 new ads per week. Maybe one sticks. Meanwhile, 2 to 3 of your current winners are already dying.

You're not scaling. You're running to stand still.

The brands that break past $100K/month test 20 to 30+ ads per week. Different hooks. Different formats. Different angles.

They're not looking for a magic ad. They've built a system.

But here's what most people miss: the ad is just the door.

If your ad is punchy but your landing page reads like a corporate brochure, you've lost them.

If your ad makes a bold promise but your landing page doesn't back it up with a story that deepens belief, you've lost them.

If someone clicks a listicle expecting a helpful comparison and lands on a hard pitch with zero context, you've lost them.

The customer journey has to be congruent from the first frame of the ad to the landing page. Same voice. Same promise. Same energy.

Brands scaling past $100K aren't just launching more ads. They're building front-end systems where the ad matches the advertorial, which matches the landing page. Each piece carries the reader forward without friction.

I've managed over $30M in Meta spend. The pattern never changes.

Brands stuck at under $30K think they have a targeting problem.

Brands growing past $100K know they have a creative and congruency problem.

How many ads did you launch last week? And does everything after the click match what you promised?

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Tomasz Sledz

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreTomasz Sledz's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Tomasz Sledz

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 ScoreTomasz Sledz's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance