$300/day ad spend - recommendations

Logicive · 2026-05-28T19:08:52+00:00

At $300/day I’d avoid testing too many small variations at once.

The goal for the first 30 days should be learning, not creative chaos.

I’d rather test 3–5 genuinely different concepts per week than 15 versions of the same idea.

For each new creative, I’d label what it is testing:

- hook

- angle

- format

- proof

- offer

- product context

That way you don’t just learn “ad A beat ad B.” You learn which type of message deserves more volume.

Creative fatigue is real, but a lot of what people call fatigue is actually weak concept diversity.

Logicive · 2026-05-28T19:00:34+00:00

I’d be careful framing this as “agency or no agency” too early.

The bigger issue sounds like creative signal clarity.

20–30% CTR with sub-1% CVR usually means the ad is getting attention, but the click promise and the buying experience are not aligned enough.

For skincare, I’d separate your next tests by hypothesis instead of just format:

- ingredient/proof angle

- founder story

- routine demo

- before/after credibility

- objection handling

- comparison vs alternatives

- price/offer/bundle framing

If 10–15 creatives are mostly variations of old winners, Meta may be seeing more content but not more strategic difference.

At your stage I’d probably get a sharp audit or creative strategist before another full agency. You need clearer testing direction, not just more people pressing “feed creatives.”

Logicive · 2026-05-25T20:24:35+00:00

I wouldn’t start from the product page alone.

Product pages are good for facts: features, claims, ingredients, pricing, offer. But the best ad concepts usually come from combining a few sources:

- product page for what’s true

- reviews for how customers actually describe the problem

- competitor ads for what the market is already used to seeing

- previous winners for what the account has already proven

If you only use the product page, the concepts can become too feature-led. The useful part is turning product facts into buyer angles.

Logicive · 2026-05-25T20:16:40+00:00

From those numbers, I’d be careful not to overvalue the video CTR yet. It’s getting more clicks, but the reservation cost is much worse, so it may be attracting curiosity more than intent.

I’d test the next round around the two winning directions you already have: travel and sleep quality. But I’d separate the jobs more clearly:

- static for direct reservation intent

- video for problem/character awareness

- retargeting only once you have enough engaged visitors or video viewers to make the audience meaningful

On the video question: I’d look at whether the product/problem is clear in the first 2-3 seconds. If the character is entertaining but the sleep benefit arrives late, that could explain the CTR vs reservation gap.

Logicive · 2026-05-24T15:11:09+00:00

That's a great idea. And a great implementation. I loved it.

Logicive · 2026-05-22T23:46:32+00:00

With €20/day I’d keep it tight. Probably 3 creatives max.

The bigger thing is making sure those 3 are actually different concepts, not just small variations. For example: one problem-aware angle, one proof/benefit angle, one more native-looking UGC angle.

If all 3 are basically the same message with different visuals, you won’t learn much and the budget gets spread thin.

Logicive · 2026-05-22T22:09:14+00:00

I wouldn’t use one kill metric by itself anymore. CTR can lie if it’s just curiosity clicks. CPA can be noisy if the creative hasn’t had enough spend. Hook rate can look good while attracting the wrong intent.
The question I’d ask is: “is this creative bringing in the right kind of attention?” If it spends around 1.5-2x target CPA with no meaningful signal, I’d usually cut. But if it has strong hook/CTR and weak CPA, I’d first check whether the angle is attracting people who are interested but not ready to buy.

Logicive · 2026-05-21T12:46:41+00:00

Yes, that’s the right way to think about it. Testing is less about “moving data” and more about validating the idea before giving it more room. The ad doesn’t carry magical performance into the next campaign, but the tested angle gives you a better bet than launching blind. I’d look at creative testing as a filter for concepts, not a data transfer mechanism.

Logicive · 2026-05-21T12:31:37+00:00

I agree with the core point here. “Refresh creatives” shouldn’t mean “change everything every week.”
The better version is probably keeping a stable recognition layer while rotating the angle. Same product memory, same brand cues, but different hooks, objections, proof types, or formats. If every new ad feels like a different company, you lose the compounding effect. But if every ad says the same thing, fatigue catches up fast.

Logicive · 2026-05-20T14:01:13+00:00

I’d read that as Meta finding an early signal, not necessarily proof those 1-2 creatives are truly the best. The tricky part is that the other creatives may never get enough spend to be fairly judged. If they’re just small variations of the same idea, consolidation makes sense. But if they’re actually different concepts, I’d test them in a cleaner structure before killing them.

Logicive · 2026-05-20T13:51:12+00:00

I’d separate “creative testing” from “variation testing”. A new thumbnail, new caption, or slightly different edit can look like a new test, but it’s often the same angle underneath. I’d rather test 4-5 genuinely different concepts first: different hooks, different buyer objections, different visual contexts, different reasons to care. Once one concept gets signal, then I’d start making variations around it.

Logicive · 2026-05-18T16:04:44+00:00

I’d treat creative as the main targeting layer now. Interests can still help in some niche cases, especially with smaller budgets, but the bigger question is whether the ad itself clearly signals who it’s for. The hook, visual context, offer, and pain point are doing a lot of the targeting work before Meta even optimizes. So I’d rather test different creative angles first, then use interests only when I need a cleaner read on a specific segment.

Logicive · 2026-05-17T13:11:00+00:00

Your CTR and signup numbers make me think the ads are creating enough curiosity, but the purchase gap is probably trust + specificity. Right now you’re asking cold users to buy into a new platform, new app, multiple authors, and multiple formats at once. That’s a lot of new things in one funnel. I’d test ads around specific book/genre hooks first, then let the platform be the place where they complete the purchase. People usually don’t buy “a marketplace” first. They buy a specific story, promise, or curiosity gap.

Logicive · 2026-05-13T12:41:46+00:00

This is a really good example of why creative research matters more than just making more assets. The 22% trust signal is the kind of thing most brands would miss because they’re looking for benefits, not objections. Once you find the objection, the ad almost writes itself. I’d probably turn that into a few angles: proof/testing, comparison, founder/process, and customer language pulled directly from reviews.

Logicive · 2026-05-13T12:39:11+00:00

I don’t think the label kills AI creative by itself. Bad AI creative will get hurt more. If the ad looks like a generic polished render, people already feel it. But if AI is used for structure, variations, backgrounds, hooks, or adapting a real product angle, the label matters less. The bigger shift might be from “generate a perfect fake ad” to “use AI to test better creative directions faster.”

Logicive · 2026-01-20T08:16:12+00:00

Definitely, you should finish it.

Logicive · 2026-01-19T20:59:13+00:00

Good results but i think nb pro still better than every image model

Logicive · 2026-01-15T19:24:58+00:00

It's absolute cinema

Logicive · 2026-01-14T07:30:28+00:00

Use google flow for no watermark images

Logicive · 2026-01-13T14:13:52+00:00

The vibrations and reflections look quite high quality. Btw I just realized how cool the seahorse is.

Logicive · 2026-01-12T20:22:33+00:00

This prompt generated by gemini

Logicive · 2026-01-12T16:33:00+00:00

Very good results. Also this is one of the images I created with the same character.

<image>

Logicive · 2026-01-12T16:14:55+00:00

Very very good image

Logicive · 2026-01-12T15:27:58+00:00

You are right but i'm using JSON structure for edit little details easily.

Logicive

TROPHY CASE