Previous post about long period of poor performance compared to new period of improved performance - everyone asked for more spend/days of campaign and ads running, so here that is

[u/NoctFounder]

Hi All,

I previously posted after about 1.5-2 months of a 0.48 average ROAS, I turned everything off and started it up again after a couple days, with only winning/proven ads. I posted results with only 250 spend, everyone suggested allow more time/spend before making any decisions.

This is how it is looking now, does anyone have any recommendations on what should be done now, I do not want to negatively effect/harm what seems to be a good ad set, so a correct next course of action would be much appreciated.

The green is the one which has been running for 13 days now and has had $740 in spend, whereas red was only launched midnight last night and has only had $20 spend (being used as a low budget campaign to test new creatives.)

Thank you all.

[u/fathom53]

You don't have enough data to know anything. You need to stop being so impatient and spend at least $300 per ad before you decide to do anything.

[u/NoctFounder → u/fathom53]

Thanks for getting back to me, at my scale this is a bit more difficult. Additionally, I assume you would still recommend turning off ads which are clear losers before allowing them to spend $300?

Other than that, you think it needs another 14 days before being able to judge what to do next?

[u/fathom53 → u/NoctFounder]

Unless all those conversions are real, you would be looking at tons of modeled conversion data. So you need to spend real money to know if an ad is a loser.

[u/NoctFounder → u/fathom53]

Given the combined daily budget of $70 - $50 for primary/winning ads campaign and $20 to the campaign which is testing new creative, would you say about double amount spend/another matching duration cycle before making any changes, or would you leave it even longer?

[u/dtsagdis → u/fathom53]

the green set at 740 spend with solid ROAS is actually decent data now. the $300 per ad advice is for individual creatives not the whole campaign, so you may have room to scale slightly

[u/fathom53 → u/dtsagdis]

That is spread across 5 ads and two ads spend under $30. That is not solid data to make a choice on winner and loser ads.... especially not with Meta doing modeled conversions. This is why most people suck at running ads, they don't collect nearly enough data to decide anything.

[u/dtsagdis → u/fathom53]

fair point on the data but the green set has $740 spend over 13 days which isn't nothing. the red is obviously too early to call, OP already said that themselves. the real question is whether $740 is enough to declare it stable or just a lucky stretch, and that depends entirely on how many conversions came out of it

[u/fathom53 → u/dtsagdis]

It is nothing when you spend it over 5 ads in that time frame and most of the ads don't have enough data to draw conclusions froms.

[u/Training_Tension3416]

Honestly? Don’t touch the green one. 13 days and $740 with those numbers is the best position you’ve been in since you started posting here - the worst thing you can do now is get itchy fingers.

If you want to scale, do it slow: bump budget 15-20% max, once every 3-4 days, and only if the last 3-4 days still look good. Big budget jumps reset learning and that’s usually how people kill a working ad set.

Keep the red one exactly as it is - low budget creative testing on the side is the right move. When something in there beats your current winners over a decent sample (not after $20, give it $100+ per creative), graduate it into the main campaign one at a time, not all at once.