Round 2 plan and recommendations

The question. Can a new opening line or setting beat the review card that already works?

How it reads. Control is a fresh-post copy of Ad 1000, so it starts with the same zero social proof as the six new statics. The 28 Oct proof analysis showed a reused post with 50+ reactions reaches £100 in 86% of cases against 32% for a fresh post, so the live post would win on proof alone.

Copy. Ad 1000's live copy pool on every arm (nothing new to approve).

Watch out. Static (1) is 1027's quote re-shot polished; we already know polish does not matter. Static (5) is the real new question: the pine-disinfectant opener that won on video, now as a still. Typo "ofr" on (4).

The question. Does Starlight sell on the pottery, the scent, or the "not too Christmassy" idea?

How it reads. Formats are mixed (two statics, three videos), so Meta will favour the videos. Read message against message inside each format, and read each arm against 1066 (still, £33) and 1067 (kiln video, £30) which share the caption.

Copy. Icicle 02 caption (approved), same as T4, so the new arms read against 1066 and 1067.

Watch out. Dropped the 8-second review-on-the-Grand video: the Grand photo lost in the Fir test (1028, £71) and its review line contradicts the scent static. Starlight notes disagree across the set (see flags).

The question. Does Noël sell on a personal recommendation, the look of the Pott, or the story behind the scent?

How it reads. Same caption on all arms. Scent messaging is consistent enough (all three name cinnamon and clove). Read on cost per order once each arm has £150, with 1064 (sniff plus a named scent, £28) as the benchmark.

Copy. New Noël caption, two options on the review page.

Watch out. The Holly gift-box video names no scent and opens on the present, which is the frame that got clicks not buyers on 1063. It belongs in Gifting, not here.

The question. Does understanding the refill remove hesitation, and which format explains it best?

How it reads. Cold audience. The hypothesis is about hesitation, so read add-to-basket per landing-page view alongside cost per order, not clicks.

Copy. New refill caption, two options on the review page.

Watch out. The close-up video is Ad 1042's video, already live to the zero-order email list; cold is new for it. All three say "about 30 seconds" (claim register). The walkthrough ends on a pink production slate at 1:07 that must be trimmed.

The question. Does a newspaper masthead on the image add enough credibility to pay for itself?

How it reads. Ailis supplied the press side only. The clean control is the same three images with the masthead removed and the quote left in. She needs to export those. The A/B tool fits here because it is a single-variable test.

Copy. New caption with no proof of its own, so the masthead is the only difference.

Watch out. The Telegraph walkthrough video has no pair, so it runs as a normal ad. In it Ailis says "Diptyque uses paraffin" while the article on screen says a vegetable and paraffin blend, and says six years in business where the market video says four.

The question. Do practical sizes, the MatchPott, or Pott out in the world earn a creative lane?

How it reads. Exploratory. The read is whether Meta funds each one at all and what it costs per order against the account's £43 break-even. An unfunded ad counts as a result.

Copy. New Starter Pack caption that sits on all three videos.

Watch out. Burn times in the sizes video (20, 60, 70 hours) match the website. The market video is really a founder story; the stall footage is the "out in the wild" part.