Michael Mulraney

More assets add little variety if they repeat the same pitch. They also warn that narrow audience segmentation and relying too long on a winning ad can limit results.

Mulraney contrasts a brand spending $10,000 a month on three active creatives with one spending the same on thirty. Four camera angles on one product are not four distinct ideas; a problem-solution ad, a testimonial, a demonstration and a lifestyle ad offer different signals.

Read original

They note that this repetition also adds production and management costs.

Mulraney describes DTC brands publishing creator videos weekly or even daily, each making the same argument. Their suggested test: does each asset introduce a new problem, angle or belief shift?

Read original

They recommend diagnosing those issues before deciding the account or agency is the main problem.

Mulraney recounts a brand that spent $11,100 and brought in $12,000 but concluded its ads were failing.

• They proposed checking new-customer acquisition cost, contribution margin, best-selling products, bundles, retention and the landing page.
• They say the budget was not changed.

Read original · Original 2 · Original 3

If a brand earns more from returning customers, it can afford to pay more for an initial purchase and need not make every ad force an immediate sale.

Mulraney gives the example of a business with more than 10,000 customers but only $5,000 a month in repeat revenue. They contrast this with their stated figures: repeat customers account for 10–15% of revenue at less profitable brands, versus 35–40% at brands scaling profitably.

Read original

A discount frame has its place, but brands can test other anchors and carry the chosen frame from the ad onto the landing page.

For a $28 protein powder, Mulraney contrasts “was $45, now $28” with “$0.70 per serving” and a comparison to the cost of coffee. The price stays the same; the comparison changes what it communicates.

Read original

The response may require business choices about efficiency, offers or longer-term positioning rather than more campaign adjustments.

Mulraney describes a home renovation client whose material costs rose 30–40%, prompting a similar price increase and lower conversion rates.

• They say bidding, creative and audience changes cannot reverse that price shift.
• Instead, they discuss prioritizing profitability, testing offers or investing in brand.

Read original

It answers the question behind most stalled paid social reviews — is the problem in the account, or in what the account is feeding? — and gives a specific order for what to check.

A brand measured $12,000 back on $11,100 of ad spend and concluded its ads weren't working.

• Mulraney argues the ads were doing their job, but the business they were feeding was leaking money, so spending harder would only lose money faster.
• They set out the audit order: new-customer acquisition cost and contribution margin, not blended ROAS; which product drives profit rather than revenue; average order value through real bundles and upsells; retention, because a customer worth $40 once and one worth $400 over two years change every upstream decision; the landing page and offer; and acquisition last, once there is something worth scaling.
• The brand's budget was never touched.
• Changes to best sellers, bundles, the offer and the page did the work.

For brands planning a campaign

Use this as the audit sequence before commissioning new creative: unit economics and offer first, then page and funnel, then spend. A brief that starts with 'fix our creative' may be solving the wrong stage.

It is the clearest statement of what creative volume is for.

Mulraney compares two brands spending $10,000 a month: one running three active creatives, the other running thirty.

• The same budget produces different delivery because Meta needs diversity to work out which creative suits which person; more variety means more signal, which affects CPMs.
• They distinguish between four camera angles of the same product and four different angles of attack — problem-agitation-solution, a testimonial, a how-it-works demo, a lifestyle context.
• Three other recurring mistakes sit alongside this: over-segmenting audiences when the algorithm performs better with fewer, broader ones; treating creative as a long-term asset when a high-spend account fatigues a winner within weeks; and reading a high ROAS that is mostly repeat buyers as acquisition performance.

For brands planning a campaign

Write creative briefs by angle, not asset count, and audit existing ads by idea rather than by creator or format. Volume without distinct messages is spend without learning.

It is the shortest, most concrete way to see the difference between output and testing.

Mulraney describes scrolling DTC ad libraries and seeing the same pattern: dozens of creator videos, new content weekly or daily, and underneath it the same script, message, angle and promise with different faces.

• Because the idea never changes, the account learns nothing about the buyer.
• Meta is not measuring how many creators were hired; it is testing whether each ad teaches the system a new problem, angle or belief shift.
• The cost of the pattern is explicit — creator fees, editing, UGC platforms and management time — all spent producing variations of one idea.
• A near-identical version of this post appears again with slightly tightened wording.

For brands planning a campaign

In a stalled account, audit existing UGC by the idea each asset carries, not by how recently it was produced. A high-volume creator pipeline with one message is a cost centre, not a testing programme.

It is the best explanation of why the account is a symptom rather than the cause.

At roughly $20,000+ a month, Mulraney argues, stalled growth is usually not an ad account issue; the account is reflecting the business more honestly than people want to admit.

• They separate two layers.
• In the account: too many campaigns, unclear budget allocation, the same angle repeated across assets labelled new, and testing that looks active but teaches little.
• Behind it: best products not being pushed hard enough, average order value never engineered upward, stale offers, weak retention, underdeveloped email, and other channels generating traffic without feeding paid coherently.
• A new agency restructures, launches tests and asks for more creative; performance improves for a stretch, then the same ceiling returns.
• Likely constraints include the offer, product mix, post-purchase monetisation, and trying to scale spend before the economics allow it.

For brands planning a campaign

Before an agency or account restructure, review product mix, average order value, retention and cross-channel flow. If the constraint is in the business, no account rebuild will hold.

It reframes the paid social question around what happens after the first purchase.

Mulraney says the most useful conversations with founders are about what happens after the ad works, because profitability is usually the problem and the ad account is the last place it lives.

• After ad spend, cost of goods and shipping, first-purchase margin is often thin or negative — ordinary for DTC at scale.
• What separates brands that scale profitably is post-purchase monetisation.
• They put the less profitable ones at roughly 10-15% of revenue from repeating customers and the ones scaling past seven figures at 35-40%, and give a concrete failure case: 10,000+ customers where repeat revenue is only $5,000 a month.
• Sorting it out widens the acquisition cost a brand can afford and lets creative introduce the brand rather than force a same-session conversion.

For brands planning a campaign

Check repeat revenue as a share of total before setting a target CPA or judging creative performance. Where retention is weak, cheaper acquisition is the wrong goal.

It is the clearest example of Mulraney working outside the media-buying frame.

A home renovation client's performance slipped after years of steady growth, and the instinct was to look inside the Meta account.

• Mulraney says there was nothing to find there: material costs had jumped 30-40% almost overnight from supply chain pressure, prices were raised by roughly the same amount, and conversion rates dropped, CPA climbed and ROAS fell, compounded by caution on higher-ticket discretionary purchases.
• No bidding strategy, creative refresh or audience adjustment undoes a 30-40% price increase, and campaigns that worked before may no longer scale the same way.
• They offer business options: prioritise efficiency over growth and protect profitability, test new offers rather than compete on a price that is no longer competitive, or invest in brand to compete on something other than being cheapest.

For brands planning a campaign

Set the price and cost baseline before diagnosing creative or account structure. When a price move explains the drop, the deliverable is a business recommendation, not a new testing plan.

It’s directly useful for a brand that has already cut prices, lost margin and seen no response.

Mulraney argues that customers react to what a price is anchored against, and that a default crossed-out price trains them to wait for the next discount.

• Their example is a protein powder at $28.
• Framed as “was $45, now $28,” it reads as a sale; framed as “$0.70 per serving,” it reads as good value.
• Compare it with the cost of a coffee every other day for a month, and the price connects to a habit the customer already accepts.
• Mulraney notes that discount framing has its place in genuine promotions.
• For DTC, the anchor is set in the ad and on the landing page, not just at checkout: if the ad establishes the comparison, the page confirms the frame rather than introducing a number cold.

For brands planning a campaign

Test anchors, not just discount depth. Message testing that only varies price points misses the frame that decides whether the number looks cheap.

An account spending $10K a month on three active creatives is, in their framing, at a real disadvantage against one spending the same on thirty.

• Meta needs creative diversity as a signal to decide who sees what; starve it of diversity and delivery, CPMs and return suffer before a dollar is spent.
• They distinguish volume from diversity of idea: four camera angles of one product are not diversity; four different angles of attack are, such as a problem-agitation-solution structure, a testimonial, a how-it-works demo and a lifestyle context.
• They also point to two related mistakes: over-segmenting audiences when the algorithm performs better with broader ones and enough creative variety for people to self-select, and treating a winning creative as a permanent asset when fatigue can hit high-spend accounts within weeks.

Diagnose the account using ad libraries and account structure: count active creatives against spend, then check whether each new asset introduces a new problem, angle or belief shift—or just puts a new face over the same script.

For brands planning a campaign

For a DTC brand with stalled paid social growth, start with this audit: count active creatives against monthly spend, then sort recent assets by idea rather than creator or format. If a dozen creator videos share one script and promise, the brand is paying for production without teaching the platform anything new.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

Different creators, same script, message, angle and promise. Mulraney argues the account learns nothing, and the cost includes not only creator fees but editing, UGC platforms and management time spent producing variations of one idea.

For brands planning a campaign

Before adding creator volume, a brand should be able to name the distinct buyer belief each asset is meant to move. This turns a UGC budget question into a creative-strategy question—and gives brands a useful test for any proposed content calendar.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Mulraney describes a brand doing $12,000 back on $11,100 of spend that concluded its ads did not work.

• Their view: the ads were fine; everything they fed was broken.
• They start outside the account, looking at new-customer CAC rather than blended ROAS, contribution margin rather than screenshot numbers, which product actually drives profit, average order value through real bundles and upsells, retention, and the funnel page.
• Acquisition comes last, because only then is there something worth scaling.
• In a second post, they argue that once a brand is spending $20K+ a month, stalled growth is usually not just an account issue: the account reflects the business.
• The recurring problems include weak support for best-selling products, AOV that has not been engineered upward, stale offers, weak retention, underdeveloped email, and other channels that generate attention without feeding paid coherently.
• A third post sets out the position as a service boundary: performance marketing and creative strategy, not email, CRO or operations—but still an obligation to understand the business connected to the growth lever.

Mulraney sequences the diagnosis deliberately: economics first, then offer, AOV, retention and funnel, with acquisition last. In the $11,100-spend case, they report not touching the budget, instead focusing on best sellers, sensible bundles, and a tighter offer and page.

For brands planning a campaign

For a stalled DTC account, test this argument before hiring another agency or restructuring campaigns.

• Ask which single product actually carries profit, what new-customer CAC looks like without returning buyers, and whether the offer and page give paid something worth scaling.
• If not, a campaign rebuild is likely to hit the same ceiling.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2 · Source 3

They report that less profitable brands they see run roughly 10-15% of revenue through repeating customers, while brands that scale past seven figures profitably sit closer to 35-40%.

• The gap, they say, comes from infrastructure built to monetise the customer relationship after the ad has done its job.
• Their example: a brand with 10,000+ customers generating only $5K a month in repeat revenue.
• When retention works, they argue, the affordable front-end CPA opens up, creative options widen, and ads can introduce the brand rather than force a same-session conversion, because the economics no longer depend entirely on the first purchase.

Compare repeat-purchase revenue with customer count, then use the resulting lifetime value to determine how much front-end acquisition can afford to lose on the first order.

For brands planning a campaign

Before setting acquisition targets or creative strategy, a brand auditing stalled growth should measure repeat revenue per customer. If the number is thin, the answer may be retention and offer work alongside paid media—not more spend on the same structure.

Examples: Source 1

The default—a crossed-out price—reads as “on sale” and quietly trains customers to wait for the next discount.

• A $28 protein powder shown as “was $45, now $28” reads as a discount; shown as “$0.70 per serving,” it reads as value; anchored against “about the cost of a coffee every other day for a month,” it is compared with a habit the customer already accepts.
• They note discount framing has its place for genuine promotions, but argue the anchor does most of the work and most brands never consider an alternative.
• For DTC, they put this in the ad and on the landing page, not only at checkout, because the creative sets the anchor before the customer sees the price.

For brands planning a campaign

Offer framing is a lever a brand can change without changing the price. For a stalled account, testing a different anchor in the creative and carrying that frame onto the landing page is cheap to run and directly tests whether the offer, rather than media buying, is the constraint.

Examples: Source 1

Nothing there had broken: material costs had jumped 30-40% almost overnight from supply chain pressure, forcing a similar price increase.

• Conversion rates fell, CPA climbed and ROAS dropped as expected, with broader economic caution compounding the impact on a higher-ticket purchase.
• Mulraney argues that no bidding strategy, creative refresh or audience adjustment can undo a 30-40% price increase.
• The right response is a business conversation about prioritising efficiency over growth, testing new offers so the business is not competing purely on price, or investing in brand to win on something other than being cheapest.
• They also make their strongest positioning claim here: the person running paid should be part of the business conversation, not just the campaign one.

Separate changes inside the account from changes in the market, and identify the macro or cost input that moved before proposing in-platform fixes.

For brands planning a campaign

A diagnostic engagement should rule out cost and demand shifts before recommending campaign changes. If a brand's CPA rose alongside input costs or a price increase, the useful deliverable may be a decision about margin and positioning rather than another test.

Examples: Source 1

The first $1,000 on ads is frightening, Mulraney writes, not because of the money but because it is the first payment to find out whether anyone cares.

• The questions go unanswered and are framed only as “testing.”
• They list what the founder cannot yet distinguish: bad traffic, tracking problems, creative, landing page, a weak offer or a slow platform day.
• The fear recedes, they argue, by understanding how the paid machine works, not by spending more.
• The post closes by inviting readers to send a direct message with the keyword “ASPIRE” for a walkthrough of what they are doing wrong on paid ads.

For brands planning a campaign

This post shows how Mulraney frames early-stage problems and positions their offer—a useful consideration when deciding whether they are right for a small advertiser or a brand already spending enough to have real data to diagnose.

Examples: Source 1

One post makes an argument Mulraney also makes in almost the same terms: a winning ad is a risk when the whole account is built around one hook, angle and message. The fix is to have the next test running before the current winner dies, rather than starting from zero.

Shakoor focuses on account mechanics, hooks, angles and testing cadence, alongside career reflection.

• Mulraney takes the diagnosis further, examining contribution margin, product mix, retention and whether the offer gives paid media something worth scaling.
• They are willing to conclude that the account was never the problem.

Read original · Original 2

Both treat creative, rather than audience targeting, as the constraint on delivery.

Hedges writes as an agency builder, describing what six years of reps taught them.

• Their most recent post turns from UGC and paid creative to live commerce as a channel where brands can still feel human.
• Mulraney focuses on diagnosing existing accounts and the commercial conditions around them, rather than pitching a move to a new channel.

Read original · Original 2

They argue that creative fatigue, not audience targeting, now limits scaling, and that brands need a high, steady rate of new asset launches rather than more optimisation of existing winners. Both use concrete spend and ROAS figures from client work to make the case.

Nyadu's posts prescribe execution cadence and budget moves, including how many assets to launch monthly, when to kill a loser and how aggressively to raise budgets when the numbers say go. Mulraney's argument is more diagnostic and cautious: campaign changes may not help when cost, margin, offer or retention is the real constraint.

Read original · Original 2

The argument is that a winning Meta ad is itself a risk: build the account around one hook, angle and message, and when that creative tires, the whole account feels it.

• The recommendation is a continuous pipeline of different hooks, angles, customer problems and formats, with the next winner already in test before the current one dies.
• It suits a brand that needs a concrete test plan, not a diagnosis of the business behind the ads.

The reasoning stays inside the account: it starts with creative dependency and ends with a testing pipeline.

• It never asks whether contribution margin, product mix, offer strength or retention is the actual constraint.
• For a brand whose stalled growth stems from the business behind the ads, this would feed more tested creative into a leaky funnel — the failure mode Mulraney describes when the posts argue that the account is only the last expression of a wider growth system.

Examples: Source 1

The argument treats every winning ad as a research document — what angle landed, what emotion it triggered and what awareness stage it spoke to — so creative compounds instead of restarting.

• It holds that the algorithm is limited not by targeting but by the diversity of inputs across angles, formats and awareness stages.
• Hedges also argues that creative performance alone cannot produce the customer relationships that carry repeat revenue, and is building beHuman toward live commerce, where a product can be demonstrated, questions answered and a purchase completed in one moment.
• It suits a brand that already knows its creative system is the constraint and wants a durable process plus a second channel to test.

The focus is creative systems and live commerce.

• The reasoning skips the commercial audit — new-customer acquisition cost, contribution margin and repeat revenue — at the front of Mulraney's sequence.
• A brand that has not established which part of the business is breaking would learn to produce and assess creative without first confirming that creative is the ceiling.
• Live commerce also means building and running an additional channel, not repairing a paid social account that is structurally unready to scale.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Published examples include brands scaling past $500,000 a month on 40–60 new creative assets monthly, killing losers within 72 hours and replacing winners as they fatigue; and an analysis of 31 e-commerce brands spending $100,000+ a month, where the strongest performers doubled budgets overnight at signal thresholds instead of raising them 10–20% every few days. It suits a brand with a working funnel at substantial spend that wants creative velocity and conviction-based scaling.

Mulraney's posts point to accounts spending far more than a $25,000-a-month brand and emphasize creative volume and budget aggression over diagnosis.

• Aggressive scaling assumes the economics can absorb it; with thin contribution margin or weak repeat revenue, that same conviction accelerates losses rather than growth.
• The posts also describe an environmental check: an input-cost or price move can produce a broken-account pattern that no bidding strategy, creative refresh or audience change inside Ads Manager can undo.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2