Hi Reader -

So I did something kind of obsessive this month.

I roasted 2 very different apps after pulling the entire Meta Ads Library for them.

Headway. Book summary app worth $400M+. And Ladder. Premium fitness app backed by some serious names.

On the surface? Couldn't be more different.

Headway is static images and text overlays. What some might call 'cringe' ads - BUT a staggering variety(45 different angles across 730 ads). here is the full roast video.

Ladder is gym selfies, quick-cut montages, bold text, direct-to-camera. TikTok-native energy. In their mind, they're probably raw and scrappy. Here is the full roast video.​

Totally different apps. Totally different vibe. Exact same problem.

Headway has 730 ads. 45+ angles. But zoom out and every ad is the same skeleton wearing a different outfit. Static image. Text overlay. Grid. 730 times without any semblance of emotional depth or visual diversity.

Ladder has 69 ads that feel spontaneous and authentic. Until you notice every single one follows the same formula: transformation deadline + physique reveal featuring a coach. They've got a look and they will not deviate from it - even if their customer reviews are loud and clear, even if there is a clear cost to staying still.

Same disease. Different symptoms.

Now, these folks arent stupid. These are very smart, well-funded, well-incentivized teams.

Sooo what’s going on here?

I’ve seen this enough times in enough completely different types of companies and products to be able to pattern match - and there are a couple of reasons why I’ve seen these creative ruts happen.

1. The Incentive Trap

Your media buyer needs a $40 CPA this quarter. Your designer gets reviewed on volume. Your product marketer is evaluated on the number of revisions they send back to the agency.

Nobody is betting their performance review on an untested format.

So the "experimental project" sits there, like that gym membership in February.

And if a failed test gets questioned in Monday standup? People quietly stop testing. The founder never hears "we stopped experimenting because you got mad at that last result."

To be clear, it's not that they stop testing altogether - they just do 'testing theater', which is testing more of what they know is already working - like the ones in the 2 roasts I shared above.

2. The Copycat Illusion

"But we study our competitors!" Sure. You screenshot their ads and copy them word-for-word, frame-for-frame.

Everyone in the same category ends up running the same ads. All copying each other's homework. Nobody understanding the assignment.

Again, this comes from organizational risk-aversion - knowing that no one is getting fired for copying . This is the modern day equivalent of the old 'nobody gets fired for buying from IBM'(but you do end up with a sucky system).

3. Proximity Blindness

You can't read the label from inside the bottle.

Your team sees 730 individual campaigns. I see one skeleton repeated 730 times. And your best people are the most stuck, because they're so good at the current playbook that changing it feels like career risk.

—-

Soooo what CAN you do?

Most orgs can't fix this from the inside. This is not a talent problem, not a creative problem - but a structural one that requires deep introspection from leaders - and an openness to modeling vulnerability for their teams.

And honestly: many orgs cant fix this EVER. They have leaders and teams talking about ‘embracing experimentation’ - but when push comes to shove, they cant really make the changes that matter most.

I’ve seen orgs resist change like this even when their creative strategy starts impacting their revenue and profitability growth - even when they’ve faced existential threats.

You and I both know the kinds of companies we're talking about.

I know because I've been the guy inside the org trying to push for change, when I worked in-house leading up to 3 exits. And I've been the guy outside looking at the ad account scratching my head and going "why dont they try something different?"

—-

What actually helps isn't another audit deck or a "creative strategy workshop" - or replying 'INTROSPECT' to this email(though you're welcome to do that ;)).

It's usually one of two things:

• someone at the top committed to open experimentation - AND willing to tolerate 'failure' - be it 'off brand' ads, or deviating from 'what works.'
• someone external who's seen this movie before, across enough products to know how it ends. Someone who isn't afraid to say "this isn't working" when everyone internally is too close or too incentivized to say otherwise.

Soooo if you're sitting on a creative team that keeps producing the same output and you can't figure out why, maybe the answer isn't more creative.

Maybe it's taking a step back to ask yourself the hard questions about why the machine only makes one thing, even if your team insists it's making many.

Shamanth

PS: And if you missed last week's creative death spiral email or my roast of Granola, both give you a different flavor of this same syndrome.

P.P.S. Everything here comes from the public Meta Ads Library. I haven't spoken to either team(Headway or Ladder). But after enough conversations over the last decade, the patterns are hard to miss.

PPS: Some goodies from our socials:

​"Our LTV to CAC ratio is 4:1."​

​It’s easy to forget what AI originally meant in growth.​

​I’ve spent $100M+ on Facebook ads.​

​Your app builds life-changing habits.​

​When I spoke with Romain Torres, Co-founder at arcads AI, he broke down something interesting about creative production.​

​I ran semantic analysis on 730 display ads from Headway Inc: I found 45 distinct patterns.​

​Read this if your Meta ad account was impacted by the algo glitch in the last couple of days 👇 ​

​When I spoke with Romain Torres, Co-founder at arcads AI, one thing stood out:​

​How to scale UA with creative strategy:​

​How to engineer creative breakthroughs​

​DON'T try to profit on your first UA campaign​