Methodology · Samples
These are real audits run through the production pipeline against three DTC brands, anonymized at render time. Each tile links to the full report, with the same five modules, same cross-insights, and same 90-day roadmap any paying prospect receives. Submit your own URL and read your own audit inside 15 minutes.
Brand A · DTC Synbiotic
Estimated waste: $0/mo
Overall grade
F
ma1_creative_strategy, creative_strategy
Launch emergency creative MVP -- 15 variants across 3 core angles
account_structure, ma3_funnel_architecture
Fix funnel architecture -- deploy 60/25/15 budget distribution
ad_lp_continuity, ma2_ad_lp_continuity
Build dedicated landing pages for each ad promise
Brand B · Premium Athleisure
Estimated waste: $0/mo
Overall grade
F
ad_lp_continuity
Fix corporate redirect leak -- ads point to corporate.Brand B but land on main site
creative_strategy
Kill creative fatigue -- replace 17-day static image with fresh formats
account_structure
Launch retargeting campaigns -- 100% prospecting is bleeding conversions
Brand C · Connected Home Fitness
Estimated waste: $0/mo
Overall grade
F
creative_strategy
Kill 7 fatigued ads bleeding performance -- immediate 15-25% efficiency recovery
ad_lp_continuity
Fix rental ad wastage -- build dedicated /rent landing page
creative_strategy
Launch 8 fresh creatives across 4 missing angles
Inside every report
What it shows
The one-page front of the report. Letter grade, waste-math headline, top-3 dollar-impact actions ranked by revenue impact.
What good looks like
A clear single-number grade and a waste figure tied to category benchmarks. Top-3 should each cite a specific module, benchmark, and revenue range.
What it shows
Every ad captured from the public Meta Ad Library, grouped by brand vs competitors, with fatigue and continuity annotations.
What good looks like
Diversity of angles and formats; competitor-side ads tagged for white-space gaps; continuity scoring per ad to landing-page pair.
What it shows
Module 1 deep-dive. Angle, format, and hook diversity; ad fatigue thresholds; winner-pattern concentration.
What good looks like
Concentration under 40% on the top angle; fatigue rotation cadence within benchmark; named missing angles a competitor is already running.
What it shows
Module 3 deep-dive. TOFU / MOFU / BOFU split, CTA-vocabulary repetition, funnel-stage skew. Surfaces MA2 ad-to-LP continuity findings.
What good looks like
Funnel split aligned with the spend stage; CTA vocabulary varied across stages; landing-page headlines mirror the ad hook.
What it shows
Module 4 deep-dive. Head-to-head positioning gaps, white-space angles, audience-segment overlap.
What good looks like
Named angle gaps your competitors are running; named segments under-served by every competitor; first-mover opportunities sized in dollars.
What it shows
Sequenced action plan with revenue estimates per action, tied to spend band.
What good looks like
Days 1-30 / 31-60 / 61-90 with named outcomes; each action priced in revenue impact; benchmark citation per row.
Methodology
Yes. Each ran through the same /metaads pipeline a paying prospect's audit runs through. The brand chrome — name, URL, logos in chrome — is masked at render. The findings, scores, benchmarks, and recommendations are real outputs.
Operator courtesy plus product framing. Sample-readers care about the shape of the audit, not the identity of the audited brand. Masking lets the page work for any vertical, not just three.
Same shape. Your category's benchmarks, your account's numbers, your competitors. Same five modules, same cross-insights, same 90-day roadmap.
No, by design. The brand-mask is the courtesy that makes us comfortable showing real audits. The audit you submit yourself, of course, is yours.
Submit your URL. Read your own audit inside 15 minutes.
