Hey guys, we’re launching a clothing startup selling premium suits with an average order value around ₹20k.

We haven’t run any ads before, so I wanted honest advice from people who’ve already scaled fashion brands.

Main things I’m confused about:

• Should we start with conversions or engagement ads?
• How much daily budget is enough initially?
• Is influencer content better than studio shoots for creatives?
• How many creatives should we test in the beginning?
• What audience targeting works best for premium clothing?
• How long should we let ads run before killing them?
• Is Meta even good for selling high-ticket fashion products?

Would really appreciate if anyone who has actually sold premium apparel/suits through Meta ads can share:

• what worked,
• biggest mistakes,
• and what you’d do if starting from zero again.

Thanks a lot 🙏

Hey everyone! First of all, I want to make it clear that I'm not a guru or expert in Meta Ads. I run ads only for myself, focused on selling my own product. I've never invested millions of dollars, but I've put a good amount of money into the platform and ended up learning a few things through practice.

The thing is, for the last three months, I've been facing an absurd difficulty in keeping my campaigns running well and stably.

During this period, I tested structures in every possible way. I used creatives following various known methodologies, but nothing worked. The campaign would run well for a few days, but when it came time to scale, it simply stopped selling. I tried vertical scaling, horizontal scaling, duplicating in various ways, and nothing that worked in the past was yielding results now.

Until, a week ago, while watching a video from an acquaintance, I had the idea to create separate campaigns for men and women.

To my surprise, this has kept my campaigns active and completely stable for several weeks, delivering a 2% ROI. I don't know exactly why this is working so well technically, but so far it's the only structure that has really worked for me. I decided to share it because maybe someone else is experiencing the same problem and will be encouraged to test it to solve this lack of stability.

The exact structure I'm using is this:

* **CBO 1-1-1 only for Women**

* **CBO 1-1-1 only for Men**

There are a few more super important details about the configuration I use in these campaigns:

* **Budget:** I put the exact ticket value of my product in the campaign.

* **Age:** I leave the age as a suggestion (for example, women between 35 and 54 years old).

* **Placements:** I only use all Feeds, Stories, and Reels. Nothing else.

After the campaign performs well, I duplicate it. I'm keeping the exact same structure and creative, but changing the audiences.

The order of audiences I'm using is as follows:

* Open

* Lookalike (LAL) 1% of Buyers

* Lookalike 1% of Pageviews

* Lookalike 1% of those who watched 95% of the video

* Lookalike 1% of Initiate Checkout

* And then I continue the cycle going through Lookalikes of 75%, 50% and 25% of Video Views.

Does this take a lot of work in the manager? Yes, it does. But what matters most to me right now is that I'm back from losses to making a profit.

Certainly, keeping everything consolidated in a single campaign is theoretically better and much easier to manage. However, in my practical experience, this unfortunately wasn't working.

I hope this current experience helps someone here get out of a tight spot too. Happy testing and happy selling to all!

I'm currently running 2 campaigns for a single SKU in the UK supplement industry. One is Top of Funnel, the other Bottom of Funnel... They're both making sales with a blended ROAS of 2.1 - which is profitable and a good starting point for both ends of the funnel.

Both TOF and BOF have ONLY 1 winning ad. Classic case of Meta attributing all the budget to the creatives that are generating sales. I have no issue with this, but now I'm looking to scale whilst maintaining testing. Do I:

1. Move the winning ads to a new campaign with a higher budget - I think this is a bad move, because if it ain't broke...

2. Move the other creatives in the TOF and BOF Adset that ARE NOT spending to a new campaign and keep the winning ads running in their original campaign.*

*My issue with this is that the 'winning ads' would only have 1 ad in the adset. Is this not bad practise, or is it ok, given that they are performing and utilising 95% of the daily budget anyway?

3. Something else that I'm missing entirely?!

Logically, 2) seems to be the best way to keep performance stable whilst trying to grow outside of the winners. It also means that if the winners fatigue, I will hopefully have a couple more to replace them.

Again, to reiterate, I'm wanting to test outside of the winners without risking current performance, because I'm confident these aren't the only angles that will generate sales.

Would greatly appreciate any thoughts or feedback!👏

Launched a new campaign a few days ago (pet niche, US) and my CPM is insanely high — around $150.

What’s confusing is that the traffic quality doesn’t look that bad (CTR is okay, landing page views are solid, and I even had some sales (4 sales, cpa $70).

Is this normal in the learning phase?

Do CPMs like this usually drop after a few days, or is $150+ usually a sign something is off with the setup/creative? PD: metrics attached in comments.

This sounds dumb… but it works.

Instead of running complicated funnels, lead forms, or expensive conversion ads…

We ran Instagram profile visit ads.

$10 per day.

That’s it.

Here’s what happened:

1. We didn’t optimise for sales

We optimised for profile visits.

Why?

Because warm profile traffic converts better than cold landing page traffic, especially for personal brands & small businesses.

People don’t want to “buy.”

They want to check you out first.

So we paid to get them to the profile.

2. The profile did the selling

Before turning ads on, we:

• Optimised bio for clarity
• Clear niche positioning
• Strong pinned posts
• Proof + testimonials
• Simple CTA

Think of the profile like a landing page.

If your profile doesn’t convert organically, ads won’t fix it.

3. We kept the creatives stupid simple

No high production.

Just:
• Strong 3-second hook
• Clear problem
• Outcome
• Subtle CTA

The ad didn’t feel like an ad.

It felt like organic content.

4. We let the algorithm qualify people

When someone clicks to your profile:

They’re curious.

When they follow:

They’re interested.

When they DM:

They’re warm.

This filters out low-intent traffic automatically.

5. We scaled what converted

Once we saw:
• Follows turning into conversations
• Conversations turning into sales

We increased spend gradually.

Within 2 months:
~$16k/month.

From $10/day profile visit ads.

This obviously won’t work if:

• Your niche is unclear
• Your content is weak
• Your offer sucks

But if those are solid…

Profile visit ads are one of the most underused growth levers on Instagram.

If you’re running IG ads right now, are you sending people to a landing page… or your profile?

Curious what others are testing.

I have several facebook accounts from 2017-2025, you can just DM me or comment down below and you will get a reply right away

My Meta campaigns have been getting around $0.10 CPC since May 11, whereas they used to average around $1 CPC. It seems like Meta is sending a huge volume of very low-quality traffic. My ROAS has dropped drastically from 2–3 down to 0.2–0.3.

Is anyone else experiencing the same issue? What solutions or fixes have worked for you?

Hi all, looking for some clarification on account disruption based on some of your experiences, if I may !

This is in relation to performance variance after alterations within the account. To cut it as short as I can, I’m being told that if I touch a scaling campaign this will cause a ‘mild’ account wide wobble in performance (very generally 15%) for 24-48 hours. Inevitable based on the fact way Meta works within a niche if a larger budget or one with higher purchases has a large budget change or a creative change.

Smaller ABO testing campaigns can be altered at will without any account wide ramifications. But when a scaling campaign is changed I simply have to cop a 7 day reoptimisation period and a day or so wobble across the account.

Does this sound right ? Budget is $500/day. It does seem to work this way (as soon as I change a larger campaign overall performance the next day or so seems to wane) ?

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on my SaaS, and I’m trying to figure out how to optimize my funnel to get a steady stream of consistent, paid users.

Right now I’m at:

• 1.45 million total impressions (tracked from August 2025 to April 2026)
• 10-20 web visitors per day
• Organic demand spanning across 20+ countries

So while top-of-funnel is strong, dialing in the conversion is my current hurdle.

The product is niche, for Upwork, and named CoverGen.io, an AI-powered tool for Upwork freelancers designed to automate highly personalized cover letters. It sits nicely in the extension bar, so you don't have to switch tabs.

I thought of building this because: Applying to jobs on Upwork requires a ton of time if you want to stand out, but sending generic, copied-and-pasted templates simply doesn't work. And tbh, without hitting the apply button faster, it's near impossible to increase the chances of getting the project, which CoverGen helped me with:

• Rapidly generating personalized proposals without writing each one from scratch
• Scaling application output while maintaining high quality and relevance
• Standing out from the flood of generic applications clients receive

So I built an AI tool to automate all of that.

What I’ve tried so far:

• Running ad campaigns on Meta, Google, and Reddit
• Hosting webinars and competitions to drive engagement
• Covering relevant blogs.

Now, how do I actually get paying customers? Because I genuinely think there are very few good tools that cover this niche.

https://preview.redd.it/4bg5bdr1zf0h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=c85ada5902a5f7555c632f41dc9c233a129804c5

So I am running a few affiliate offers and need to know what's the best converting set up for bridge page

Here are some options i have

1. Provide detailed info on bridge page itself and then take the user to product page

2. A demo video with a 'email sign up form' to then allow access product page

3. A demo video on bridge page (without email sign up form) when clicked, takes the person to product page to see the video and also display price of product on bridge page.

Has anyone tried this for low ticket digital products? If so, which option converts best? You can also share if something other than the above has worked.

Thanks!

Hey gang, GG from Confect here. We recently pulled data from 3,000+ advertisers and over $834M in ad spend to look at what actually shifted after Meta's Andromeda update.

Real behavioral data from real brands, not recycled takes.

Three things stood out that I think are worth sharing.

1.The update hit broad audiences harder than retargeting, which is the opposite of what most people assumed.

A lot of the early Andromeda commentary was about retargeting becoming less reliable. '

What our data actually shows is that broad prospecting took the bigger hit in terms of efficiency variance.

Why?

Andromeda relies more heavily on creative signals to decide who to show an ad to.

In retargeting, the audience signal is strong enough to compensate for weak creative.
In broad, the creative IS the targeting signal. I

f your creative doesn't encode who it's for, Andromeda has less to work with and efficiency drops.

The accounts that maintained stable CPAs in broad after the update were almost all running creative with clear product specificity and audience context built into the frame itself.

2. Catalog ads with brand assets in the creative are outperforming generic product-only frames by a significant margin.

Before Andromeda, a clean product-on-white worked fine. Andromeda's ranking model weights predicted engagement much harder now. Generic frames don't generate the scroll-stop signal the algorithm needs to distribute efficiently.

What we're seeing across the dataset: ads that carry brand context (a logo, a color system, a price badge, a background that isn't white) are getting meaningfully better delivery at the same bid.

The algorithm is essentially charging a tax on creative that looks like every other retailer. Not a design opinion. Showing up consistently across verticals in our data.

3. Frequency tolerance went up, but only for creative that earns it.

Accounts running varied creative sets are seeing higher frequency thresholds before performance degrades.

Andromeda appears to be better at distributing across a creative set and avoiding the same person seeing the same ad repeatedly.

The practical implication: the "refresh creative every 2 weeks" rule of thumb is too blunt now. Accounts with 4-6 distinct creative variations are sustaining performance at frequencies that would have killed a single-creative setup pre-update. The cadence that matters now is distinctive variation count.

These are 3 patterns from the data. Not universal laws, different account structures will see this differently. But across 3,000+ advertisers and $834M in spend these were consistent signals.

Happy to go deeper in the comments, or share the report if you interested in 30+ more findings

Again this is aggregated data from 3000 ecom advertisers so might not be exactly as you experience things in your own ad account 😃