The account was not underspending. It was under-supplied.
- Client
- Norra
- Industry
- Skincare
- Engagement
- Full growth marketing
- Running since
- March, 9 months
- Channels
- Meta, Google, TikTok
Norra sells a four step routine at a premium price, and had built an entire account on one winning video. When it fatigued there was nothing behind it, and the studio producing the assets worked a three week brief to delivery cycle. By the time a replacement landed the market had already moved on.
- 4.1x
- Blended ROASat exit
- -38%
- Cost per acquisitionchange
- $212k
- Monthly spendat exit
The challenge
One video had carried the account for seven months. Cost per acquisition climbed every week from the moment it started to tire, and the response from the incumbent agency was to raise bids on the audience that had already seen it. Nobody in the chain could produce a replacement inside the window in which a replacement was worth having.
The approach
Rebuild the offer, not the ad
Three constructions of the same product went live in one week against the same audience. The one that won took the budget and the other two were cut, which took two days rather than the usual month of debate.
A pipeline, not a batch
Creative moved in house on a weekly cycle. Concepts on Monday, live on Thursday, judged the following Monday. Losing concepts were rebuilt rather than defended.
The page keeps up with the ad
Whichever angle was live got a landing page written to match it, in the same week, by the people who wrote the ad. That is only possible when one team holds both.
The results
Ninety days in the account was spending more than twice what it had been and returning better than it did at a third of the volume. The gain did not come from a smarter bid strategy. It came from having something to say.
Norra now tests more creative in a month than it produced in the whole of the previous year.
We had three suppliers and nobody who could tell us why the number moved. Now one team owns all of it, and I get one answer instead of three.