We test ideas, not single ads. Each idea gets its own space, a fair budget and a clear pass or fail. The winners move into one main campaign, where a small set of proven ads gets most of the money.
Testing takes a small, fixed share of the budget. Everything that proves itself moves across to Scale, and Scale stays lean so every ad in it gets enough spend to keep learning.
Every ad set below targets the same broad audience. Meta decides who sees which ad.
One ad set per idea. Each idea has 3 to 5 versions and its own set budget, so every idea gets a fair read.
Only proven ads. Meta moves budget to whatever's working best that week.
Creative matters from the first second, so we never test words on their own. Each idea is one message with creative made to say it: the video, the words on screen and the copy all say the same thing. Once an ad has proven itself, we refine it one change at a time.
One message plus the creative made to say it.
One ad. Each idea has 3 to 5.
The first 3 seconds: shot, words on screen, first line spoken.
Talking to camera, demo, review card, static.
Question: which idea sells best? One ad set per idea. This is how most of our testing runs.
Question: what gets even more out of an ad that already works? Only for specific cases.
Also for: the same image with a different headline on it.
Inside a normal ad set Meta picks a favourite early and gives it nearly all the budget, so the other versions never get a fair read. That's fine when we're judging the whole idea, but it can't tell us which hook is best. For that we use the A/B test tool.
Every version needs about 3× the target cost per sale on its own, so a three-way test costs about three times as much as one idea test. It's worth it on an ad that's already earning, not on an untested one.
There are clearly different buyers with different reasons to buy. Each persona's message is its own idea.
It's mostly one type of buyer at different points of readiness. Each stage's message is its own idea.
We'll pick one route once we've looked at Hyde & Hare's reviews, orders and past ads. The "why" comes from the test log: every idea is labelled by its message, its format and its proof, so patterns show up across rounds.
Every rule is set against your target cost per sale, so it scales with the account.
About three times the target cost per sale before we call it.
Spent twice the target cost with no sale? We pull it.
Judged on 7-day click sales, not on who merely saw it.
Meta favours one version early. Versions with little spend are unread, not losers.
Every idea ends up in one of three places. Nothing sits in testing forever.
the idea against the other ideas running that week
Hit the target cost per sale. It's copied into Scale as the same post, so it keeps its likes and comments, and the weakest Scale ad comes out.
Close to target, or it didn't get enough spend to judge. Top it up, or change one thing and run it again.
Hit 2× target with no sale, or clearly behind. We write down what we learned so the next idea is smarter.
A steady rhythm stops us reacting to one good or bad day.
New ideas go live. Last week's winners move to Scale.
Tests run untouched so the read is clean.
We check the top spenders in Scale for signs they're wearing out.
What we tested, what happened, what we learned.
One shared log, one line per test. Every idea is labelled by its message, format and proof, so after a few rounds we can see what's really winning, e.g. one message beating the rest whether it's a video or a static. Over time this becomes the playbook for what Hyde & Hare customers respond to.
| Test | Message · format · proof | What we expect | Result | What we learned |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Persona A idea | Main reason to buy · talking to camera · a customer says it | Speaking to their main reason beats a general message | Filled in after 7 days | Filled in after 7 days |
| Hook A/B test on a winner | Same video · 3 different openings | Opening on the offer beats opening on the product | Filled in after 7 days | Filled in after 7 days |