CBO and Creative Strategy in Branding

CFO: What's our balance of brand vs performance spend? CMO: 100% of it is brand. CFO: That can't be right. We're spending millions on direct response ads. CMO: Yet we've seen brands like True Classic hit $450M in 4.5 years—bootstrapped—by redefining "brand" in performance marketing. CFO: I don't follow. Their ads convert like crazy. CMO: Because they don't look like ads. Their founder said: "The most effective ads are the ones that aren't marketing at all." CFO: So they don't sell product benefits? CMO: They focus on entertainment first. Their thesis: make people laugh, then let them decide when to buy. CFO: But how does that drive conversions? CMO: People are tired of being sold to. They're getting barraged with the same ads targeting the same in-market audiences. CFO: So just... make funny content? CMO: They run both types. Check their ads library—you'll see classic DR ads with product specs. But they also invest heavily in entertaining content. CFO: Our investors would riot if we shifted away from conversion metrics. CMO: Meta just announced average ad costs are rising 14%. Everyone's fighting for the same small pool of clickers using the same tactics. CFO: That explains our rising CAC. CMO: When everyone uses the same targeting and strategies, creative becomes the only remaining source of alpha. CFO: How do we balance immediate revenue against this approach? CMO: That's the biggest misconception. There's no tradeoff. CFO: Everyone says brand building hurts short-term revenue. CMO: Completely false. Not all in-market buyers are clickers. Many see an ad, then do a branded search. CFO: So we're missing those people? CMO: By optimizing only for clickers, we're targeting a tiny subset of in-market buyers—at premium prices. CFO: But if we change objectives, won't revenue drop? CMO: People move from out-of-market to in-market every day. CFO: But they don't automatically start clicking our ads? CMO: Exactly. I see you starting to cook. When they decide to buy, they go with the brand that's already in their mind. CFO: So it's about being the brand that gets remembered? CMO: Precisely. Better creative reaches both current buyers and future ones. CFO: So what's the ideal approach? CMO: We want to be like the bear standing in the rushing river where salmon jump right into its mouth. CFO: And we're currently...? CMO: We're fishing in a stagnant pond that's evaporating while everyone fights over fewer fish. CFO: That's... vivid. CMO: The river is what happens when your brand is so strong that people actively seek you out when they're ready to buy. CFO: I think I need to update our financial models to account for this approach. CMO: File it under "how to become the bear with salmon jumping in its mouth."

Most brands analyze creative tests by looking at ROAS and CPA. That's like judging a restaurant by the bill instead of the food. ↳ Here's how to actually find winning patterns: Looking at performance metrics alone tells you IF something works. But it doesn't tell you WHY it works or how to replicate it. The Framework That Actually Works: 𝟭. 𝗦𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘁 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗧𝘄𝗼 𝗕𝘂𝗰𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀 Primary metrics = Performance (tells you IF it works) - Spend, Purchases, CPA Secondary metrics = Storytelling (tells you WHY it works) - Scroll Stop Rate (hook strength) - Hold Rate (narrative engagement) - Outbound CTR (offer appeal) Why this matters: Performance metrics help you scale winners. Behavioral metrics help you create more winners. 𝟮. 𝗨𝘀𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝗶𝘅 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀 Don't change offers randomly. Let the data guide you: Low Scroll Stop Rate = Weak hook → Test bold claims, fast motion, pattern breaks Poor Hold Rate = Boring narrative → Improve pacing, cut slow parts Low Outbound CTR = Weak CTA/offer → Test different positioning Why this works: You're fixing the actual problem, not guessing at solutions. 𝟯. 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗪𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 Stop looking at winning ads in isolation. Find common threads: Do they use specific hook styles? Similar pacing structures? Particular testimonial formats? Build a Creative Optimization Library documenting what works. Why this matters: Patterns create predictable processes. Processes eliminate guesswork. 𝟰. 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗣𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲 Most brands test random variations. Instead: If Scroll Stop Rate is bad → Test new hooks If Hold Rate is weak → Adjust storytelling If CTR is low → Optimize offer positioning Why this works: Every test has a clear objective and higher success probability. What You Can Expect: Fewer failed creative tests → Faster winner identification → Predictable creative production process → Higher overall ROAS from better optimization The Psychology: → Behavior data reveals true audience preferences. → Patterns show what actually drives action. → Purpose-driven testing eliminates waste. Next Steps: Week 1: Set up behavioral metric tracking Week 2: Analyze your last 10 winners for patterns Week 3: Build your Creative Optimization Library Week 4: Implement purpose-driven testing Be honest... Are you iterating creatives based on data, or gut instinct?

We just grew an account from $350k/month in spent to $900k/month. All while decreasing CPA by 10%. Most brands think you can't scale without efficiency loss. We were able to prove otherwise here. When you scale profitably, it's because: - Creative quality is improving, not declining - Audience expansion is working - net new audiences reached - The right Attribution is capturing true incrementality Here's what the process looked like: 1/ Account re-structure We noticed Cost Caps (CBO) were more incremental than Highest Volume and were able to double down on that campaign and launch new creative tests. You can find the incrementality inside of Meta's new "incremental attribution" column. We didn't just launch 5-10 ads per ad set, we maxed out the amount of ads that each ad set was able to hold. What we noticed was the increase in ads per ad set actually avoided us creating seperate ad sets but also making sure we focus on volume. Each ad set was a persona type we were going after. The account also doesn't just have 1 bidding type but multiple to help support this type of growth. Highest volume campaigns provided a higher net new % of visitors vs cost caps but cost caps provided a more efficient first time customer CPA. Both working together is what helped us scale and maintain this new high. 2/ Creative diversity The brand we're talking to one specific customer type and it was very noticeable. They weren't able to get much spend on their cost control campaign and their incremental reach MoM was decreasing. The immediate implementation made in creative strategy was to launch creative that talks to different audiences. We launch six different persona tests over the first couple of weeks to understand which personas would allow us to spend more on caps. Scaling multiple psychological triggers across different formats was the core focus to avoid creative fatigue while scaling. This mostly involved using emotional triggers in the creative to show that we cared about our customers rather than being really problem/solution focused. Creative was much slower pacing, lighter music and was more organic. Within 2 weeks we were able to find creative that got more delivery in our cost caps. When this happens you need to double down on this persona, this includes: 1. Whitelisting that ad from the creators profile 2. Using the same script but different models (delivery of creators vary) 3. Using similar messaging across different formats What most brands get wrong: They find one winner and beat it to death. Smart brands find multiple winners and rotate them strategically. Instead: - Test diverse creative angles simultaneously - Scale winners while testing new concepts - Monitor efficiency metrics, not just volume Majority of your wins will come through creative, get really good at this process and scale your account.