good point, think this applies to a lot of metrics as well.
biggest takeaway that I've learned is that every metric should be taken relative to the other metrics as well, there could be one metric that shows great results but when you look at the other metrics it may not be so good.
roas is a good example, another one is ctr.
there are oftentimes when we have a great ctr and you may think oh great you are stopping the scroll and your visuals are doing well, but..
If your ctr click-through rate is poor then you're not really converting those clicks into any sort of buying intent
fr bro really gotta be an mma fighter haha like for marketing I always think it's good to have both a paid and an organic channel just so that you're diverse. I think it's also about having a diverse set of skills and different tools that you can use because obviously every problem or every product you build might require a different design, a different distribution channel, and so on and so forth.
the more you know, the better.
@leonabboud maybe a system to help craft your thoughts and ideas into good copy? tho copywriting has a lot to do with taste/style so hard to automate tbh
@ads4apps think the takeaway here is that every metric should be looked at not individually butin relation to the other metrics too , cos same can be said for when you look at roas but disregard budget and spend etc
most meta ads advice is TRASH and built for people spending $1k+ a day
if you're spending $30-$100/day, copying it can absolutely destroy your account
everyone says:
"make 15-20 creatives and let meta find the winners"
sounds smart
until you realize your $50/day budget is now being spread across 20 ads
- one gets $27
- another gets $11
- another gets $4
- half of them get pennies
then people look at the results and say:
"these creatives lost"
no they didn't buddy, they barely got tested
andromeda needs signals to figure out who responds to each creative
signals require impressions
impressions require spend
so if your budget is small, more creatives can actually mean less learning
what i prefer:
give each creative enough exposure to actually prove itself
i use roughly 1,000 impressions as the minimum directional read, ideally 2,000-3,000 if budget allows
once an ad hits the threshold, pause it and force spend into the others
then compare:
- ctr
- link ctr
- cpm
- landing page views
- add to carts
- purchases
- cpa
- roas
now you're comparing ads that actually had a chance to compete
find the 2-5 that earned the spend
cut the rest
then let meta do what it's actually very good at, which is finding more buyers for creatives you've already proven
tl;dr: small budgets need more signal per dollar
make first purchase offer feel meaningfully different rather than just doing another 15%
i'd test something like 20-25% off the first order, free shipping, a free gift, or a starter bundle. sometimes a value add like "free X with your first order" is actually better because you're not just training people to wait for bigger discounts
if it's a subscription product, something like 25% off your first order + 15% off every order after, cos the first discount gets the cold customer over the initial risk, while the 15% gives them a reason to stay subscribed
also i wouldn't make the main ad offer dependent on an email popup
if the ad says 20% off first order, i'd send them to the relevant landing page and have the discount automatically applied. making them click the ad, hit a popup, enter their email, go check their inbox, copy a code and come back is just adding friction after you've already paid for the click.
you can still have an email popup for people who don't buy, or test email-gating separately, but i'd want the main cold traffic offer to be as frictionless as possible
most importantly i'd A/B test the offers rather than assume the biggest percentage wins