Ads People Stop Scrolling For. Funnels That Close Them.

Strategy, audience and creative development, campaign structure, weekly testing across Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, plus the tracking and landing page alignment that turns clicks into revenue.

It depends on who buys from you and at what price point. Meta suits B2C, D2C, and most local businesses; LinkedIn earns its high click costs mainly for B2B with deal sizes that justify them.

We handle strategy, copy, scripts, and design direction, and produce static and edited video creative in-house, alongside a managed creator-sourcing system for UGC-style content — raw footage or customer content you already have is often valuable input too.

Enough to complete real testing cycles — typically ₹60,000–₹1,00,000+ per month on Meta for meaningful signal, more on LinkedIn given its click costs. Below that, results turn on luck rather than process.

Largely, yes. Conversions API, enhanced event matching, and first-party data feed the algorithm what browser pixels lost. Perfect attribution is gone for everyone; decision-grade attribution is achievable, and it's part of our foundation work.

UGC (user-generated content) is raw, authentic-feeling footage from customers, founders, or sourced creators — it typically reads as more trustworthy to viewers and provides the creative diversity Meta's delivery system rewards, compared to polished, studio-style variations of the same concept.

There's no universal number — it depends on spend level and audience size — but a structured weekly testing cadence, rather than waiting for visible fatigue, is what keeps performance from declining in the first place.

It's Meta's server-side tracking method that reports conversions directly from your server rather than relying solely on a browser-based pixel — critical for tracking accuracy since iOS privacy changes reduced what pixels alone can capture.

Initial signal typically emerges within the first few weeks of structured testing; consistent, compounding performance usually takes a full quarter as winning creative angles are identified and scaled.

LinkedIn's click costs mean smaller budgets often struggle to complete meaningful testing cycles — for earlier-stage budgets, we'll often recommend a different sequence, sometimes starting with Meta or organic work first.

Creative fatigue is the most common cause — teams often adjust audience targeting when the real problem is that the same one or two ads have been running too long without genuine testing.

Yes — this is common, usually caused by cold traffic sent straight to a high-commitment ask like a demo request; rebuilding the funnel around a warmer, offer-led first touch typically resolves it.

Often, yes, when the economics support both — but we'll say directly if only one platform makes sense for your budget, rather than running two retainers when one would serve you better.

Cheap, high-volume leads from vague offers and frictionless forms often convert poorly for sales — a more specific offer with some qualifying friction usually produces fewer but far more valuable leads.

Revenue per impression, not likes, comments, or other engagement vanity metrics — creative is judged on business outcome, not social validation.

Yes — the Foundation stage is specifically built to establish tracking and account structure correctly from the start, avoiding the common early mistakes that plague first-time accounts.

Cleanup and restructuring happens in the Foundation stage before any new creative testing begins — inherited accounts with broken tracking or tangled campaign structures are common, not unusual.

Yes — learnings frequently flow both directions; social ad testing often reveals messaging that improves Search ad copy and landing pages, and vice versa.

A live dashboard plus a monthly plain-language report covering spend, revenue, winning creative angles, and next tests — including the bad months, always.

Yes — no lock-in contracts, consistent with how every Optiv engagement is structured.