u/RichGlad4991

Hey everyone,

I'm currently dropshipping a home-decor product from China and I'm considering upgrading the packaging to make the whole experience feel much more branded/premium.

Right now, the product is shipped compressed in plastic bags. It works perfectly fine from a logistics perspective, but the unboxing experience is obviously quite basic and doesn't really match the brand experience I'm trying to build.

Ideally, I'd like to move towards something like:

• A custom branded cardboard box
• Better presentation inside the box
• Individual branded bags for the different pieces/components
• A branded thank-you/instruction card with a QR code
• Overall, something that feels like receiving a product from an actual established brand rather than a generic compressed dropshipping package

The product is relatively bulky, so I'm also concerned about increasing the volumetric weight too much. I'd want the box to remain as compact as possible while still improving the presentation.

For those of you who have made the transition from basic/generic packaging to fully or partially custom packaging when fulfilling from China:

Roughly how much extra are you paying per order?

I'm mainly trying to understand whether I should realistically expect something like $1–3, $3–5, $5–10+ per order, including the box, inserts, custom bags and any additional packing/handling fees.

I'm also curious whether you let your sourcing/fulfillment agent handle everything, or if you order the packaging separately from a Chinese packaging manufacturer and have it shipped to your agent/3PL.

If anyone can share actual numbers, MOQs, volumes, or lessons learned (especially regarding volumetric shipping costs), that would be really helpful.

Thanks!

We run Meta Ads for an e-commerce brand and recently noticed a very strong performance difference by age.

The product is a bit more complex than a typical impulse purchase. Customers need to understand how the product works, take measurements, select sizes, and then complete the purchase.

Because of that, it is evident that there is more friction for older audiences once they land on the website (despite the customer support resolving superb). Interestingly, older audiences tend to engage with the ads and generate very cheap clicks, but their post-click performance is way worse.

This is data from our Prospecting ABO Testing campaign. Broad targeting, optimized for Purchase:

Age	Spend	CPC	Link Clicks	Purchases	Click → Purchase CVR	ROAS
25–34	€49.30	€0.33	148	6	4.05%	10.40
35–44	€161.54	€0.48	338	7	2.07%	4.62
45–54	€398.43	€0.41	980	7	0.71%	1.94
55–64	€340.67	€0.26	1,314	5	0.38%	0.83
65+	€188.70	€0.17	1,085	2	0.18%	0.97

What caught our attention is that the cheaper the clicks become with age, the worse they monetize. 55+ generated around 2,400 link clicks but only 7 purchases, while 25–44 generated fewer than 500 clicks and 13 purchases.

At this point, we're considering excluding 55–64 and 65+ from the campaign.

Our main concern is what happens next.

If we remove 55+, we're worried Meta will simply start allocating most of that budget to 45–54, since it would become the oldest available audience and it isn't exactly performing amazingly either (1.94 ROAS / 0.71% click-to-purchase CVR).

We don't necessarily want to keep excluding age groups until Meta finally allocates more spend on 25–44.

What would you do in this situation?

Would you exclude 55+ and let Meta redistribute the budget? Would you use Value Rules to reduce the value of older age groups instead? Or would you leave everything broad and trust Meta despite the current distribution?

Curious if anyone has dealt with a similar pattern where Meta seems to heavily favor older audiences because of cheaper traffic, even though younger users generate significantly better ROAS.

I’m currently running an ABO creative testing campaign for a home-decor e-commerce brand, and I’m seeing a pretty clear pattern.

My TOF-style creatives (mostly short and long UGC videos focused on problem → solution, product demonstration and market-opening hooks) are performing consistently well. After a few hundred euros in spend, the winners are sustaining around 2.5–3 ROAS on broad targeting.

The product is relatively high-ticket for my market (up to 100-150€ depending on the configuration) and requires some consideration before purchasing. It’s definitely not an impulse-buy product, so the conversion journey tends to be longer.

My main concern is BOF.

I’ve tested some BOF-style concepts: (discount/offer creatives, testimonials, guarantees/risk reversal, urgency, etc). So far, none of them have meaningfully outperformed the TOF creatives. Some have actually performed considerably worse.

My working theory has always been:

TOF style creatives: generate attention, introduce the problem/product and create demand. Lower ROAS is acceptable because they can be scalable.

BOF style creatives: convert people who already have intent/consideration. They should generally produce a higher ROAS, but naturally have less scaling potential because the pool of high-intent users is smaller.

Ideally, I’d expect my scalable TOF winners to sit around 2-3 ROAS, while strong BOF creatives could potentially achieve 4–5 ROAS at significantly lower spend and help lift the blended account ROAS.

But that second part simply isn’t happening yet.

For those managing higher-consideration e-commerce products: would you keep testing and iterating for a BOF creative concept that closes the sale, or is the TOF/BOF creative style distinction becoming less relevant with broad targeting and Meta’s current delivery system?

What BOF concepts would you test next if discounts, testimonials and guarantees weren’t moving the needle?

I’m currently running an ABO creative testing campaign for a home-decor e-commerce brand, and I’m seeing a pretty clear pattern.

My TOF-style creatives (mostly short and long UGC videos focused on problem → solution, product demonstration and market-opening hooks) are performing consistently well. After a few hundred euros in spend, the winners are sustaining around 2.5–3 ROAS on broad targeting.

The product is relatively high-ticket for my market (up to 100-150€ depending on the configuration) and requires some consideration before purchasing. It’s definitely not an impulse-buy product, so the conversion journey tends to be longer.

My main concern is BOF.

I’ve tested some BOF-style concepts: (discount/offer creatives, testimonials, guarantees/risk reversal, urgency, etc). So far, none of them have meaningfully outperformed the TOF creatives. Some have actually performed considerably worse.

My working theory has always been:

TOF style creatives: generate attention, introduce the problem/product and create demand. Lower ROAS is acceptable because they can be scalable.

BOF style creatives: convert people who already have intent/consideration. They should generally produce a higher ROAS, but naturally have less scaling potential because the pool of high-intent users is smaller.

Ideally, I’d expect my scalable TOF winners to sit around 2-3 ROAS, while strong BOF creatives could potentially achieve 4–5 ROAS at significantly lower spend and help lift the blended account ROAS.

But that second part simply isn’t happening yet.

For those managing higher-consideration e-commerce products: would you keep testing and iterating for a BOF creative concept that closes the sale, or is the TOF/BOF creative style distinction becoming less relevant with broad targeting and Meta’s current delivery system?

What BOF concepts would you test next if discounts, testimonials and guarantees weren’t moving the needle?

Hi everyone,

I have a question regarding ABO testing campaigns.

When testing new creatives, I usually launch one ad per ad set (UGC, before & after, testimonials, static images, etc) in an ABO campaign. Something I've noticed is that on the first days, CPMs are often significantly higher than what I normally see in my more established CBO campaigns.

For example, targeting Spain:

ABO testing campaigns: €15–20 CPM

Established CBO campaigns: usually around €8–10 CPM (sometimes even lower)

I don't think the higher CPMs are being caused by poor engagement, as most of my ad sets achieve 3–4%+ Outbound CTR, so the creatives seem to resonate well with the audience.

Is this a common pattern?

Should I assume that a winning creative will likely achieve a noticeably lower CPM once it's moved into a more stable scaling campaign?

Or do you treat the CPM from the ABO test as a reliable indicator of what the creative will achieve long-term?

I'd love to hear how more experienced media buyers think and how you address it.

Hi! I know this post might seem like a joke, but a few days ago I ordered my first batch of Reta, which (God willing) should arrive in a couple of weeks.

The thing is, my partner is coming to visit in a few weeks, and I’ve done some research and apparently it needs to be stored in the fridge. Obviously, she doesn't know anything about it and I want to keep it that way. She’s a medical student, and honestly, I just don't want to deal with the argument or have to give a ton of explanations. I remember that I ordered Modafinil from India back in the day (useless), and I was treated like an idiot for using Reddit as my source of information.

Is there a way to hide it in the fridge so she doesn't stumble upon it? I’ve thought about using a small toiletry bag or an opaque container, but that might look a bit suspicious, wouldn't it?

Let me know how you guys handle this. Thanks, everyone.