@iamshackelford Helpful, but I don't think this is the right premise. It's not doors; it's constraints on business growth. Brands need to understand their entire marketing system and apply the theory of constraints.
High ROAS ≠ good ads.
It can mean you’re under-spending, retargeting existing demand, or selling a low-margin product.
The goal isn’t to maximize ROAS.
The goal is to maximize profitable, incremental customer acquisition.
I think everyone agrees that as businesses scale, the amount of work they take to run also grows. Everywhere. Supporting greater scale requires more work.
This is true in your ad account. A $100k/mo account and a $1mm/mo account don't take the same amount of work.
Your pushing for a flat rate retainer isn't savvy. It's begging for disaster.
At best, you're overcharged at the start to account for cost growth on your partner's side.
More likely, as the work grows, the agency either under-services the account or routes more work to lower cost talent to maintain margin.
If you want to work with the best, and you should, you have to share the upside. If you want your agency partners to invest more resources in your success, you can't expect them to do it to their own detriment.
I'll die on this hill...
There is absolutely no reason you should touch paid ads until you're doing $5 to $10 million in revenue.
Learn how to create demand organically through content, partnerships, and outreach first. That's enough to take you to that 5-10M mark. Then once that engine is running, layer ads on top.
If you do it the other way around you risk getting eaten up by rising ad costs before your margins can absorb it.
The new ChatGPT ad platform still sucks.
I’ve talked to a lot of agency owners, and they’ve said it is a nightmare.
The $500 in matched spend is horrible. They should have come in with something serious, like $10,000 to $20,000, and made a hard hit into this.
Brands desperately need more viable places to spend.
We all want another serious competitor to Meta and Google...
@chrislukehall: “Platforms in the past have said, ‘We’ll give you $10,000 in matched ad credits. Please come spend your dollars here.’”
“I actually think this is a really negative sign for what they’re trying to do.”
@chrisorzy: "I don’t care what platform it is, as long as it works. If I put a dollar in and get more than a dollar back, I’m going to do it.”
“I’m pulling for it to work because I would love another platform beyond Meta and Google.”
@ecommcowboy is live M-F at 12P CT.
I think any company that principally sells digital goods, but even potentially DTC / eCommerce brands, should position the CMO role as a marketing economist, primarily focusing on measurement and optimal budget allocation.
Digital marketing is increasingly opaque, with the largest platforms absorbing placement-level and audience logic. This requires measurement to be abstracted upward into a full-time executive role that can a) align disparate marketing functions and b) maintain harmony with the CFO’s office. “Marketing economist” strikes me as the right profile to meet those demands.
I know this role indeed exists at many large CPG brands, but what I’m claiming here is that it should exist at digital-first companies as the head of the marketing organization.
Groq Founder @JonathanRoss321 says the ability to “choose the dominant game being played” is what determines whether a company succeeds or not:
“MySpace was focused on number of accounts signed up. Facebook focused on monthly active users—it was the dominant game.”
“If you maximize the monthly active, you're going to beat someone who's maximizing accounts signed up. You're playing a better game.”
“What most really successful founders and entrepreneurs do is, everyone else is playing this game, and they realize that if you play this higher level game, you win.”
Looking for a hungry, high-agency Growth Strategist who wants to help scale some of the best outdoor brands in America.
You'll thrive here if you:
→ Have 5+ years scaling DTC brands on Meta and Google
→ Are obsessed with customer acquisition, contribution margin, and profitable growth
→ Understand attribution, MTA, MMM, incrementality, and the limitations of each
→ Love pulling data, finding insights, and presenting recommendations to clients
→ Have strong opinions on growth, testing, and scaling, but are willing to change your mind when the data proves otherwise
→ Take ownership, solve hard problems, and proactively bring new ideas to the table
This is not a "manage campaigns and wait for instructions" role.
We expect our Growth Strategists to diagnose constraints, build 90-day growth plans, challenge assumptions, and help clients make better decisions.
Compensation: $120,000–$210,000 OTE
To apply, email [email protected] with the subject line: "Growth Strategist Opportunity"
Please do not apply if you prefer being told exactly what to do, dislike presenting to clients, or are uncomfortable taking ownership of outcomes.
This is an unprompted @andrewfoxwell appreciation post. Foxwell Founders Slack is so insanely valuable.
Got some great prompt guidance and creative inspo already and it's not even 8am.
Rick Rubin’s fishing metaphor:
This is the sign of a true professional. He doesn't sit around waiting for inspiration to come— he goes to the studio rigidly, every day, ready to work, knowing that it will be there for him when he calls on it.
“It's like fishing. You can go out and spend the whole day fishing and not catch any fish. You can work for a day or for a week and nothing good can happen. That happens. It's out of our control.”
You have to trust the process. You have to keep showing up.
The data to grow your brand is already in front of you.
You just need to see it through the right lens.
Check what percentage of your ad impressions are going to existing customers vs new ones.
Ask whether your creative is speaking to a specific person with a specific problem or just saying something vague that could apply to anyone.
Look at your pixel quality score and your conversion event hierarchy.
Those 3 things, in plain sight, will tell you more about why paid ads aren’t scaling than any strategy session will.
Imagine spending $6M in just 11 hours… and learning faster than everyone else because of it.
That’s what happens when testing becomes your biggest advantage.
Before I look at ROAS, CTR, CAC, or anything else, I want to know what the contribution margin on the product we’re scaling is.
That number is the ceiling on everything.
It’s the max we can sustainably pay to acquire before the economics of the business start to deteriorate.
If that margin is too thin, no amount of creative brilliance, audience precision, or landing page optimization is going to make the math work at scale.
You might be able to engineer your way to a slightly lower CPA, but you can’t engineer your way out of a fundamentally broken unit economics problem.
What surprises most brands is that contribution margin isn’t as fixed as they think.
It’s actually one of the most adjustable variables in the whole system.
Bundle strategy, for example, changes it immediately.
When one of our recent clients saw customer that were just as likely to buy the home and travel kit bundle as a single unit, the blended contribution margin on that offer improved enough to justify more aggressive bidding.
Other strategies to move the margin lever without requiring a product redesign include:
- Pricing tests
- Upsell sequences
- Post-purchase offers
- Subscription conversion
Most brands are so focused on reducing what they spend on media that they never think about increasing what they make per transaction.
But it’s an equally valid path to improving CAC efficiency.
A $10 improvement in average order value on a $100 product can do more for your CAC ceiling than a month of creative testing.
Start with contribution margin, model what target CAC needs to be at your current and aspirational spend levels, and then build your acquisition system backward from those numbers.
The math tells you where the opportunity is.