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.

TikTok and Meta ads for DTC Brands | Creative Strategist | UGC Producer|Founder of Tok-Vibes.com

Hi, I’m Oli!  a creative strategist who helps DTC brands turn scrolls into sales. I blend storytelling and data to build ads that not only grab attention but also drive growth. Here’s what I do best: I dig deep into your ad data and customer psychology to find out what truly makes your audience click. Then I craft fresh ad concepts (often leveraging UGC and AI content) grounded in those insights. The result = Campaigns that lower your CAC, boost ROAS, and scale your revenue sustainably. Over the past 5+ years, I’ve helped startups and global brands alike smash through growth plateaus:🔹 Scaled Loop Earplugs to exceed a $18M Q4 sales goal by 33%. (Yes, we overshot the target by a mile!)🔹 Drove 3.5X ROAS on $150K ad spend for a DTC accessory brand by reinventing their creative strategy (20% above benchmark performance)🔹 Cut CPA by 18% for a skincare client and found new customer angles that led 5 out of 50 test ads to drive 70% of their online revenue.I’m a founder, too... I launched an accessory brand with an innovative first product that I designed myself. I partner with you, founder-to-founder, treating your business like my own. If something isn’t working, I’ll tell you. If I spot an untapped opportunity, I’ll seize it. My approach in a nutshell: Test, learn, iterate. 📊 I run structured ad tests (thanks to my nerdy side that loves numbers) and then double down on the creatives that perform. No fluff, no ego.. just actionable insights and winning ads. And because I started as a content creator myself, I excel at producing ads that feel real and relatable (not like those stiff “agency” ads). On a personal note, I’m a bit of a nomad and nerd: I’ve lived on 3 continents, speak English &amp; French, and once grew a fitness Instagram to 15k followers just by talking about protein pancakes. 🥞 (Turns out, authentic content really does attract an audience...a lesson I carry into my ad strategies!). When I’m not optimizing campaigns, you can find me in a Reformer Pilates class and having lunch on a terrace with a friend.Ready to scale your DTC brand with ads that convert? Let’s chat. 😊 Send me a DM or book a call through my profile link, and let’s spark your next phase of growth.

Oli Cimet

We started cussing in our ads.
Performance went through the roof.

Here's why.

Client sells to blue collar guys. Construction workers, mechanics, tradesmen.

These dudes don't say "I'm quite dissatisfied with my current solution."

They say "this shit doesn't work."

So we stopped writing ads that sounded like a marketing team wrote them.

We wrote ads that sounded like their customers talk.
"Retire this shit."
"Rate: excellent. Because we're not f*cking around."

The client was nervous. "Can we really say that?"
I said let's test it.


Clean version: 1.6x ROAS.
Raw version: 3.2x ROAS.

Double the performance. Same product. Same offer. Just different words.


Your customer should watch your ad and think "this is for me" before they even see the product.
That only happens when the tone matches.
Match the mouth. Not the brand guidelines.

QuickFrame Creator: Meta Platform Expert

QuickFrame Creator: TikTok Platform Expert

Certified Personal Trainer & Nutrition & Postnatal Coach

Visual communication -  Front End 

Back-End Web Developer

Fashion Styling and Editorial Certification

Google Digital Marketing & E-commerce

Meta & TikTok ads for DTC Beauty & Health brands | Performance Creative Strategist | Ecom | Startups to Fortune 500s

Tok-Vibes is a small creative strategy team that crafts ad campaigns rooted in psychology and boosts performance. 

I'm an expert in growing DTC businesses, but outside of work I've:

Lived on three different continents, built a holistic health brand, and became a Pilates reformer lover.

Creative Strategy Studio for 7-8 Figure DTC Brands | Performance Creative for Meta & TikTok | Creator of the Tok-Vibes Method™

McDonald's CEO called his own burger a "product" on camera.
Your customer can tell when you do the same thing in your ads.

Every time your ad says "our solution is this revolutionary ingredient" instead of just "This stuff ATE my morning routine. I'm not going back"

Every time your creator holds the product like a prop instead of something they actually use.

Every time your script sounds like a template instead of a person...

Your customer feels it. And they scroll.

The brands winning are the ones that feel the most real.

Not "our proprietary formula supports gut health."
More like "I stopped bloating in a week and I'm genuinely mad I didn't try this sooner."

One sounds like a brand. The other sounds like a person.

Your customer buys from people. Not logos.

Start talking about it like someone who actually uses it.

No alternative text description for this image

$310K in revenue.
$112K in ad spend.
Still not profitable.
And that was the plan.
Most founders see a revenue number and assume profit.

A skincare brand hit $310K/mo.

 From the outside, it looks like a massive win.

The reality: $112K in ad spend. Plus COGS, transaction fees, vendors, admin. The math barely breaks even.
On purpose.
Because the founders made a strategic decision: acquire as many subscription customers as possible at break-even before competitors catch up.

Short-term profit? Zero.

Long-term value? Thousands of recurring subscribers who pay every month without another dollar of ad spend.

This is a real strategy. But it's not the right strategy for everyone.

If your margins are thin, you can't afford to scale at break-even.

If you don't have subscription revenue, there's no "long game" to play.
If your product doesn't retain customers, you're just buying expensive one-time purchases.

Before you "scale aggressively," answer this:

What's the 6-month value of every customer you're acquiring?
If you don't know that number, you're not scaling.
You're gambling.
Know your CLTV before you crank your budget. That's the difference between aggressive growth and aggressive waste.

You know that ad you pulled from Ad Library? Your customer saw it 3 weeks ago. From them.

A client came to me doing $120K/mo.

Solid product. Solid team. Ads were "working."

But growth was flat. Same revenue for 4 months straight.

I pulled their ad account. Then I pulled their top competitor's Ad Library.
Nearly identical.

Same hooks. 
Same script structure.
Same angles. 

Your customer already saw that ad. From them.

Same audience. Same feed. Same message. Different brand.

So when your ad shows up, it doesn't feel new. 
It feels like a rerun.

And people scroll past reruns.

We scrapped everything.

Went into Reddit threads, Amazon reviews, Reviews, Youtube,Tiktok

Found 4 pain points their competitor wasn't even talking about.

Built new concepts around those.

First month: 3 out of 4 outperformed anything they'd run in the last 6 months.

Because we said something different to an audience that was tired of hearing the same thing.

Your Ad Library isn't your strategy.
Your customer's unspoken problems are.

"F*** Meta Ads. I'm done."
I hear you.
But your competitors aren't done.
They're still in your customer's feed. 
Still testing. Still showing up.
And the customer you spent months warming up? 
They're about to buy from someone else.
Meta didn't break. It stopped rewarding lazy creative.
Same ad. Same format. Same angle for 6 months? 
The algorithm is bored. 
Your audience is bored.
The brands scaling right now are testing new angles weekly. 
Mixing formats. Making ads that feel like content.
Before you quit, ask yourself:
When's the last time you made something your customer would actually want to watch?
Don't quit the platform. 
Fix the creative.
The founders leaving right now are making it cheaper for the ones who stay.

"Struggling with [problem]? Meet [product]."
You've seen this ad. So has everyone else. 400 times this week.
74% of new web content is now AI-generated. Every brand is using the same tools to write the same copy with the same hook-USP-CTA formula.
The internet is drowning in ads that sound like ads.
And your customer can smell it instantly.
They don't read your USP. They don't click your CTA. They scroll past anything that feels like a template.
What stops them?
Something that sounds like a person, not a brand.
Not "Are you tired of acne?"
More like "My dermatologist was shocked when..."
One is an ad. The other is a mirror.
Your customer stops for mirrors. Not billboards.
The dead internet killed copy that sounds like copy.
The brands still winning? They sound human.

The brands spending $400K+/mo that keep scaling are the ones that treat creative like a production system

At $400K+/mo in ad spend, your #1 bottleneck isn't budget. It's creative.

The algorithm is hungry. You're feeding it the same 4 ads it already optimized for. It's chewing through your audience faster than you can refresh the content.
Then you blame "audience fatigue" or "platform changes."
It's not fatigue!!!!!

It's starvation. 

You starved the algorithm of new creative.

Here's the ratio that works at scale:
For every $100K/mo in spend, you need 8-12 new creatives per week.
Not random concepts. Strategic variations built from what's already working.
Break down your winners:

What hook stopped the scroll?
What visual held attention?
What angle drove the click?

Now rebuild each element with slight twists. 
same body different format 
Same hook but in a static
new creator
Same angle, new format....

The brands spending $400K+/mo that keep scaling are the ones that treat creative like a production system. 

Not a brainstorm session every other Tuesday.

Volume isn't the opposite of quality. It's how you FIND quality.

My highest-performing ad last month was built from 3 dead ads.

Here's the method:

Ad 1 died at 1.4x ROAS. But the hook had a 42% thumb-stop rate..
Ad 2 died at 1.2x ROAS. But the body story held people for 18 seconds. Great retention.
Ad 3 died at 0.9x ROAS. But the CTA had a 4.1% click-through. Way above average.

Each ad failed as a whole. But each had one part that worked.

So I stitched them together.

Hook from Ad 1 + Story from Ad 2 + CTA from Ad 3.

Result: 3.4x ROAS. Scaled to 5fig ad spend quick.

I call this the Frankenstein method.

Most brands look at ads as pass/fail. Winner or loser.

I look at ads as parts. Hook. Story. Proof. CTA.

A "failed" ad with a great hook isn't a failure. 

It's a hook you haven't paired with the right body yet.
Stop killing ads. Start harvesting them.

I heard a barista tell a customer yesterday:
"Sorry, we're out of oat milk. We've been out all week because I keep forgetting to tell my manager we need more."
The customer left.
That barista just showed me every founder's scaling problem in one sentence.
You know there's a problem.
You know how to fix it.
But you haven't systematized the fix.
In DTC terms:

You know your best ad is dying (the oat milk is running out)
You know you need new concepts (you need to reorder)
But you haven't built the system to flag it and act on it

Most brands don't fail because they don't know what to do.
They fail because they don't build the system that makes sure it gets done.

Every Meta Ads tutorial teaches you to sell the problem.
That works for some industries. but it can kill your brand.

Nobody has a "pain point" about t-shirts for example.
Nobody googles "my current hoodie is ruining my life."

Fashion isn't a solution. It's an identity.

For these products, you need to stop testing pain points. Start testing identities.

Not "premium cotton, relaxed fit."

More like "this outfit ATE and I need everyone to know."

The fashion brands scaling past $100K/mo right now aren't pitching their clothes.

They're making you want to be the person wearing them.
That's the ad.

If you're stuck and wondering why the ads aren't adsing 

it's because some frameworks weren't built for you.

some needs its own playbook.

Stop testing "Women 25-45."
Start testing "Women who bought competitor X in the last 30 days."

Here's what happened when I tightened targeting for a skincare client:
Broad test: $180 CPA, 1.4x ROAS
Competitor purchaser test: $35 CPA, 3.1x ROAS
Why?
People who JUST bought a solution are still in "seeking" mode.
Either they're not satisfied yet, or they're comparison shopping, or they want to stack products.
They're warm. They have budget. They're in-market right now.
Your best customer isn't "interested in skincare."
It's "bought skincare in the last 60 days and is still searching."

I heard a story the other day about a founder who almost died.
Heart attack at 34. Woke up in the ICU thinking about all the things he never built.
A year later, he launched a business doing the thing he'd been "planning to do eventually."
Hit $500K revenue in year one.
Here's what he said changed:
"I stopped waiting for perfect. Perfect was killing me slower than the heart attack."
Before: spent 3 years researching, planning, perfecting the idea.
After: launched in 6 weeks with a landing page and a prayer.
The business he built in 6 weeks outperformed the one he'd spent 3 years planning.
Turns out the biggest risk isn't launching too early.
It's never launching at all.

You hired more people to move faster.
You just gave more people access to your mess.

There's a winning ad in your pipeline right now that won't go live this week.
Not because it's bad.

Because it's stuck between Notion, Slack, Asana, and a Google Drive folder nobody can find.

Brief in one tool. Feedback in another. Assets in a third. Approval in a fourth.

Every handoff is a delay. Every delay is a day you're not testing.

And every day you're not testing is a day your competitor is.

You don't have a talent problem. You have a system problem.

The fastest creative teams don't have the best people.

They have one system where everything lives.

Briefs. Scripts. Feedback. Assets. Status. All in one place.

Centralized = fast.
Fast = more tests.
More tests = more winners.
More winners = more revenue.

Before you hire another strategist, ask yourself:
Can everyone on your team find what they need in under 30 seconds?
If not...
 that's your bottleneck.

 Not your people.

The "aspirational" ad strategy is dying.
Your customer doesn't want to see a dream.
They want to see themselves.

For years, the playbook was: show the perfect version of life. Make the customer want that. Sell the product as the bridge.

It's not working like it used to.

A skincare brand switched from aspirational content to educational, conversational content.

Instead of flawless models with perfect skin, they featured real people talking openly about their skin struggles.

Comments went from "nice ad" to actual conversations.

People tagged friends who had the same skin issues.

Shares doubled.

CPMs dropped because the algorithm rewards engagement.

Aspirational ads get watched. Conversational ads get shared.

And shared > watched. 

Every time.


Your customer doesn't need to be sold a dream. 

They need to feel understood.
Make ads that start conversations.
Not commercials.
The algorithm rewards the brands people actually talk about.

Your best ad died after 12 days.
It wasn't a bad ad.
You just don't have a system to replace it.
At $500K+/mo, creative fatigue isn't an occasional problem.
It's a daily reality.
The algorithm burns through creative faster at scale because you're reaching more people faster. 

An ad that lasts 30 days at $5K/mo might last 10 days at $500K/mo.

If your response to fatigue is "we need to brainstorm new ideas"....you're already behind
By the time you brainstorm, brief, produce, and launch, you've lost 2-3 weeks of declining performance.

You should always have 2 weeks of creative in the pipeline AHEAD of what's running.

While this week's ads are live, next week's are in editing, and the week after is in scripting.

Log every creative in one place.

 Track what's working, what's fatiguing, what's dead. 

Not in your head. In a system your whole team can see.

When a winner starts declining, the replacement is already queued.
That's not creative genius. It's a production calendar.
The brands that scale past $500K/mo don't have better ideas.
They have better pipelines.

The clients who want the most creative concepts are usually the ones who need the fewest.
Client came to me: "We need 50 per week."
I asked: "How many winners do you have right now?"
Them: "One. But it's dying."
Me: "Then you don't need 50 concepts. You need 20 iterations of your one winner."
Most brands treat creative like quantity game.
More concepts = more chances to win.
Wrong.
Your winning ad contains every signal you need. Milk it.
I'd rather have 1 proven concept with 10 strategic variations than 50 random concepts hoping something sticks.
When you find gold, don't go looking for silver.

Flight attendant told me during boarding:
"I check the same 6 things before every flight. Same order. Every time. Been doing it 20 years."
I asked: "What if you skip one?"
She looked at me like I was insane. "I don't. That's the point."
That's the difference between amateurs and pros.
Amateurs rely on motivation.
Pros rely on systems.
My pre-launch checklist for every ad concept:

Hook passes 3-second test?
Script passes customer language test?
CTA is friction-aware?
Brief includes shot list?
Editor has reference ads?
Tracking is live?

Same order. Every time.
I don't FEEL like checking. I just check.
That's why my win rate is 40% and not 5%.
Systems beat motivation every single time.

My Pilates instructor taught me more about creative strategy than any marketing course.
She said: "Your body will compensate. If your core is weak, your shoulders will do the work. You'll still get through the movement, but you're building the wrong muscles."
That's exactly what broken creative strategy looks like.
Weak hook? Founders compensate with bigger budgets.
Weak offer? They compensate with more concepts.
Weak product-market fit? They compensate with "better" creators.
You get through the month. But you're building the wrong thing.
The best strategists don't compensate. They fix the weakness.
Sometimes the insight comes from weird places.

Your customer is scrolling "spring glow up" content right now.
Your ads still look like January.

Here's the problem with most creative teams:
They don't write briefs inspired from their customer's feed.

They haven't opened TikTok as a CONSUMER in weeks. 
They don't know what formats are getting pushed.
 They don't know what their audience is actually watching at 10pm on a Tuesday.
And then they wonder why the ads feel off...

Your customer's feed changes every season. Every month. Sometimes every week.

Right now it's spring break prep. Glow ups. Reset routines. Fresh starts energy.

If your ads aren't matching that, they feel stale. 
Not because the product changed. 
Because the MOMENT changed and your creative didn't.

 and it's not complicated. It just takes discipline.

1. Create a fresh Instagram account just for your brand.
Follow your brand + Follow 10-15 creators in the niche. 
Then just scroll.

Within 48 hours, the algorithm starts serving you exactly what your customer sees every day.

That's not your feed. That's THEIR feed.

The content the algorithm pushes to that account is literally a map of what your audience is consuming right now. 

The formats. The sounds. The hooks. The vibe. All of it.

If your creative team isn't doing this, they're guessing.

2. Check TikTok Creative Center weekly.
ads.tiktok.com shows you what's actually performing. Not what you THINK is trending, what's driving real engagement and spend.
Top ads by category. Trending hashtags. Winning formats.
This isn't optional research. This is the brief.

3. Use Atria
What are the brands in your space running RIGHT NOW? Not last quarter. This week.
What formats are they testing? 

This takes 30 minutes a week. And it gives you more strategic insight than a 2-hour brainstorm session ever will.

Your customer's feed is the most honest creative brief you'll ever get.
It tells you what they watch.
What they save.
What they share.
What makes them stop scrolling.
If your team isn't consuming what your audience consumes, they're making ads blind.
And if they ARE doing this and your ads still feel stale?
You need a better team.

Open article: TikTok for Business | Marketing & Advertising on TikTok by ads.tiktok.com

TikTok for Business | Marketing & Advertising on TikTok

Day in the life of a creative strategist growing Tok-Vibes.
5:30am
Lemon water. supplements. 10 minutes of not thinking about ads. This is non-negotiable.
5:40am
Open every client's ad account. Check what happened. What scaled? What died? What's in learning phase? I flag anything that moved more than 15% in either direction.
6:00am
I log WHY.
I write down what I think happened. "CPA down 12% on women 35-44." "Body holds but CTA is weak..." "Founder vulnerability sells. The story earns enough trust.. Keep the founder as a recurring character across future ads..."

This log is the most valuable document in my business. Over time, patterns emerge that no dashboard shows you.

9:00am
Daily alignment with my strategist team. We call this the morning brainstorm.
Everyone shares what they're seeing across their accounts. What's winning. What's dying. What angles are popping off in one niche that we should test in another.
One strategist notices a before/after hook crushing it for a skincare client. Another one's seeing the same format flop for supplements. We talk about why. We riff on what to try instead.

This is where the best ideas come from. Not one brain. Multiple strategists cross-pollinating insights across brands every single morning.

9:30am
Brief writing block. This is deep work. No Slack. No calls.

Every brief has a strategic reason behind it. 

Each brief includes hooks, headline, script, on-screen text, CTA, shot list, and editor notes. 

editors shouldn't have to guess anything.

11:30am
Gym. I leave the laptop. My brain needs to not look at a screen for 2 hours. Some of my best ideas happen when I'm working out.

1:30pm
I scroll TikTok while drinking coffee... I scroll the burner accounts I created for each client.
I'm watching what the algorithm serves their audience. What sounds are trending. 
This looks like "she's just scrolling." It's the most valuable research I do all week.

2:30pm
Collaboration block. This is when I review edits from editors, send feedback, approve finals, and hop on quick calls with clients if needed.

3:00pm
Competitor and trend research. I check Atria for what's running in each client's space. I check ads.tiktok.com for top performers by category. I screenshot anything interesting and drop it into the team workspace.
This is where next week's briefs start forming.


5:00pm
Laptop closes. Done.


Not every day looks exactly like this. Some days are messier. Some clients need more. Some weeks are heavier on briefs, others on strategy calls.
But the structure stays the same:
Data first. Team alignment second. Briefs third. Research always. Log everything.

That's how we deliver briefs each week without ever guessing what to make next.

And that's what running a creative strategy studio actually looks like.
It's not glamorous. It's disciplined. And discipline is what scales brands.

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Oli Cimet

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreOli Cimet's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Nathan Perdriau

Oli Cimet

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 ScoreOli Cimet's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreNathan Perdriau's LinkedIn Performance