What we're building next.

“Lulu spent thirty thousand on Meta last month. About four thousand of that was wasted on three specific problems. The biggest single one: Meta is over-serving one ad that converts worse than its alternatives — that's eighteen hundred a month, gone. The other two are about eleven hundred and thirteen hundred. None of these are growth bets. They're errors. Three meetings with the marketing team, three weeks, and Lulu frees up fifty thousand dollars a year.”

“Your account has three compounding structural issues. Meta's delivery is concentrating impressions on a single ad whose conversion rate is thirty-one percent below the alternatives — that's a delivery-system trap, not a creative win. Two of your prospecting audiences overlap sixty-three percent — you're paying the auction premium twice. And eighty-four percent of conversions come from one creative, so a fatigue cycle would tank the account. Document what your agency says about each. Re-audit in thirty days.”

“Three high-confidence findings on Lulu's account. One: the ad set called Prospecting Summer 2026 has a single ad pulling four-point-two-x the impressions of its siblings, but its conversion rate is thirty-one percent below the set average. Duplicate the ad set so Meta re-evaluates each ad from scratch. Two: the LAL 1% and Sparkling-Water Interests audiences overlap sixty-three percent — exclude one from the other so they stop bidding against each other. Three: eighty-four percent of conversions come from one creative. Load three fresh hooks this week.”

“Roughly four thousand a month, or fifty thousand a year, is being wasted on three statistical inefficiencies the platform doesn't surface on its own. These aren't growth bets or strategic experiments — they're errors. Fixing them costs about three hours of media buyer time and zero dollars in new ad spend. Payback on the Honest Growth subscription, seventy-nine dollars a month, is achieved in week one of implementation. The ROI math doesn't move much at higher account counts.”