By Ryan Richardson · Published 8 October 2026
Across the same book funnel, 5 separate single-variable tests ran: which ad hook converts (hook-pool test), whether a deliberately high-variance creative angle outperforms the standard pool (moonshot), whether skipping the book-purchase page for a direct phone-call CTA works better, whether a weekend title-variant push on feed traffic moves anything, and whether an anti-hype, contrarian positioning angle beats the standard pitch.
| Test | Ads | Spend | Impressions | CTR | Landing page views | Purchases | CPA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hook pool | 60 | A$838.61 | 9,308 | 4.46% | 191 | 6 | A$139.77 |
| Moonshot angle | 5 | A$181.77 | 2,024 | 6.42% | 41 | 2 | A$90.88 |
| Anti-hype positioning | 5 | A$73.38 | 826 | 4.60% | 19 | 0 | no purchases |
| Direct-to-call CTA | 11 | A$46.45 | 4,085 | 3.13% | 80 | 0 | no purchases |
| Weekend title test | 9 | A$284.23 | 40,688 | 1.28% | 288 | 0 | no purchases |
On sales, the hook-pool test is the only one of the 5 with recorded purchases (6), and even that is a thin, directional sample, not a reliable rate: a 6-purchase CPA of A$139.77 should not be budgeted against. The moonshot angle's 2 purchases at A$90.88 CPA is even thinner. On engagement, the moonshot angle actually posted the highest CTR of the 5 (6.42%), and the weekend title test drew by far the largest reach of any sub-test here (40,688 impressions on A$284.23) without a single tracked purchase.
The direct-to-call CTA and the anti-hype angle both ran on real spend (A$46.45 and A$73.38) and recorded zero purchases; neither sub-test gives grounds to say the direct-to-call idea or the anti-hype idea failed outright, only that neither converted in this specific spend window.
No documented follow-on change was found for these 5 sub-tests specifically; they sit alongside the much larger, better-attested RYG 2C test on a related book offer, which is where the account's documented creative-pipeline changes were made.
Running several small, single-variable tests in parallel on the same funnel (hook, angle, CTA, title, positioning) is a cheap way to map which levers are worth a bigger budget before committing to one. The limitation this batch shows clearly: at this low a spend per sub-test, almost none of them produce enough purchases to separate a real effect from noise, so treat this kind of batch as a shortlist generator, not a source of final answers.
| Claim | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Hook pool: spend/ads/impressions/CTR/LPV/purchases/CPA | A$838.61 / 60 / 9,308 / 4.46% / 191 / 6 / A$139.77 | Sixty Steps ad account, Meta Ads data |
| Moonshot angle: spend/ads/impressions/CTR/LPV/purchases/CPA | A$181.77 / 5 / 2,024 / 6.42% / 41 / 2 / A$90.88 | Sixty Steps ad account, Meta Ads data |
| Anti-hype positioning: spend/ads/impressions/CTR/LPV/purchases | A$73.38 / 5 / 826 / 4.60% / 19 / 0 | Sixty Steps ad account, Meta Ads data |
| Direct-to-call CTA: spend/ads/impressions/CTR/LPV/purchases | A$46.45 / 11 / 4,085 / 3.13% / 80 / 0 | Sixty Steps ad account, Meta Ads data |
| Weekend title test: spend/ads/impressions/CTR/LPV/purchases | A$284.23 / 9 / 40,688 / 1.28% / 288 / 0 | Sixty Steps ad account, Meta Ads data |