The Influencer Campaign With a Vanity-Metric Problem
A skincare brand ran a $150,000 influencer campaign across 30 mid-tier creators to launch a new serum. The agency reports 12 million impressions, 480,000 engagements, and an engagement rate of 4%, calling it a success. However, the brand's own tracking shows only 2,100 attributed purchases in the campaign window, and the serum's blended CAC across all channels is $48. Several creators used the same discount code, making per-creator attribution impossible. The serum has a 60% gross margin and a $42 average order value. Customer service reports a spike in returns and complaints that the product 'didn't match the videos.' The CMO wants to renew with the same creators next quarter.
1. Assess the campaign's performance using the available numbers, and identify the measurement problems.
Read the worked answer
Revenue from attributed purchases: 2,100 × $42 ≈ $88,200; at 60% margin, gross profit ≈ $52,900 - well below the $150,000 spend, so on attributed purchases alone the campaign is underwater (roughly $0.35 of gross profit per dollar spent). Even allowing for unattributed halo purchases, the gap is large. Measurement problems: (1) shared discount codes destroy per-creator attribution, so the brand cannot tell which creators drove purchases; (2) impressions and engagement are vanity metrics that don't map to revenue; (3) the 'engagement rate' is computed without a clear denominator and is easily inflated; (4) returns and complaints suggest the creative overpromised, meaning gross revenue overstates net contribution. The agency's success framing rests on reach metrics, not incremental sales.
2. What should the brand do before deciding whether to renew, and how should it fix attribution?
Read the worked answer
Do not renew on the agency's metrics. First, quantify net contribution: subtract returns and complaints from attributed revenue and estimate any halo via a holdout or geo test. Second, fix attribution: issue unique codes or tracked links per creator (or per creator group), and require post-purchase surveys ('how did you hear about us?') to capture untracked influence. Third, diagnose the creative mismatch: review the videos that drove returns and align creator briefs with accurate product claims. Fourth, evaluate creators on downstream metrics - purchases, net revenue after returns, repeat rate - not engagement. Only renew creators who show credible incremental sales and acceptable return rates; renegotiate terms or replace the rest.
3. The CMO argues '12 million impressions is huge awareness we can't measure in sales.' How would you respond, and what would justify renewal?
Read the worked answer
Awareness can have value, but it must be evidenced, not assumed from impressions - impressions count deliveries, not attention or recall, and 12 million is not inherently valuable if it reaches the wrong audience or drives returns. To justify renewal on awareness grounds, the brand would need brand-lift evidence (aided awareness or consideration lift in exposed vs. unexposed audiences) and a path from awareness to future purchase. Given the return/complaint spike, some of that 'awareness' is negative. Renewal is justified if, after fixing attribution, specific creators show positive incremental sales net of returns and acceptable brand-lift signals; otherwise reallocate to creators and formats with demonstrated downstream performance.