A worse ROAS can produce a much better customer. Here's the one comparison to look at before Q4.

Most brands this BFCM will be watching three numbers: Revenue. Spend. ROAS.

I'd add a fourth: Which customers are we buying?

We already know the offer matters.

But did BFCM acquire customers you actually want to keep?

Promotional cohorts have shown 20–40% lower lifetime value than non-promotional cohorts, with holiday cohorts often 30–50% lower.

Other ecommerce benchmarks put discount-acquired customers roughly 35–45% lower on 12-month LTV.

So the discount isn't just changing the first order.

It might be changing the kind of customer you're acquiring.

Same thing with the channel.

One analysis found Google Shopping customers generating roughly 3x the LTV of Meta customers, despite the lower ROAS.

That makes me wonder if we're still looking at acquisition quality too high up the funnel.

We separate customers by offer and channel.

What happens if we separate them by the reason they clicked (AKA the creative angle)?

Take a hydration brand - One person comes in through an angle about athletic performance. Another comes in through an angle about recovering after a night out.

Same SKU. Completely different reason for buying.

If the angle tells you why someone bought, I'd expect it to tell you something about what they'll buy next.

And if that's right, the creative isn't just deciding who clicks. It's helping decide who you own.

That's what I'd want to test before Q4 gets expensive.

> Pull last year's BFCM-window first-time buyers as one cohort and a full-price month, like March, as the comparison.

> Then look at repeat rate and revenue per customer at 6 and 12 months.

You don't need a complicated model. Just answer one question:

What did the discount actually cost us after the first order?

If the BFCM cohort bought less often, generated less revenue per customer, or needed another discount to come back, you have the real cost of that November decision.

That was the promo P&L.

This is who the promo bought you.

And that changes what I'd call a great BFCM.

The Q4 creator program window is now open and the demand starts to work like the Meta auction.

Use this time to test and build relationships before BFCM, because the first deal with a creator is usually the most expensive.

Here's how I'd run it: 👇

1.) Lock in creators before BFCM

> Source, negotiate, ship, learn early

2.) Use September-October for learning, double down from November - December

> Find winning creators, offers, hooks, formats

3.) Start with a tight program:

- 5 creators/month

- ~$1-3K/creator- 1 Reel + 1 Story- Whitelisting- 90-day usage

4.) Don't create 50 pieces of UGC

> Find handful of creators whose content can carry paid spend

5.) By BFCM, stop experimenting

> Time for scaling what’s already working

Or let the team at Aligned Growth handle this for you,

​AGM's Q4 Partnership Ads Accelerator handles everything: sources creators, negotiates rates, ships product, writes creative briefs integrates white-listers into the brand's ad account for the paid team to test.

- 15 creators- 2 ads each- 30 creatives- Tested from Sept. 15–Dec. 15

A client we worked with together last year averaged 5X ROAS on ~$100K in spend.

Book a Call

The strongest objection to this is predictable:

“They're BFCM customers. Of course they behave differently.”

They're just looking for deals. So maybe it doesn't matter which offer or creative angle brought them in.

If that's true, then there's no point optimizing for customer quality. You should just maximize volume in November and accept that those customers will be worth less.

I’ll concede that holiday cohorts often underperform.

But I don't think poor customer quality is inevitable.

Maybe you can’t influence who enters the cohort because nobody builds the acquisition strategy around who you actually want to retain.

If Q4 cohorts consistently underperform, I’d want to separate two things: seasonality and acquisition quality.

The season creates the conditions, but the offer and creative angle still influence which customers you acquire within those conditions.

I could be wrong. Maybe it’s all seasonality.

But then the channel-level LTV gaps shouldn't exist either, and they do. So it’s worth testing whether your acquisition strategy is making it worse.

There's another cohort I'd separate while you're doing this.

Organic and referral customers can repeat 40–60% more often than paid-social customers because they have already self-selected into the brand before the first purchase.

I wouldn't use that as a reason to declare organic better. I'd use it as a reason to stop treating every cheap customer as equally valuable.

A $20 CAC customer isn't necessarily better than a $40 CAC customer.

It depends what happens after. Peak season is probably the worst time to forget that.

You're not just buying November revenue.

You're buying next year's customer base.

If cohort quality becomes part of the goal, three things change.

1. Offer depth becomes a targeting decision, not just a margin decision.

Who sees the deep offer matters as much as how deep it goes. The discount that acquires a new customer also sets their price anchor. More on the non-discount menu in a coming issue.

2. Lead billing goes to the SKUs that buy good customers.

The products you front the campaign with should be chosen by what their buyers do afterward, not just by what converts cheapest on day zero.

3. Spend follows the angle, not just the ROAS.

If the entry angle predicts back-end value, the question becomes which angles you're willing to pay peak CPMs to own. That's a very different allocation than chasing the cheapest conversion.

Those three decisions are exactly what makes this a September conversation instead of a November one.

Nord Media helps DTC brands between $5M – $100M+ in revenue scale by driving profitable growth utilizing Meta, Google and Creative Strategy.

Book a call and let's see how we can help you grow 👉 book a call with me.​

​

​

Twitter

-

LinkedIn

-

Instagram

-

Threads

​