Managing Partner @ Brick | Ads & Creative for 100+ DTC brands - $300m+ in sales | I write content about paid ads, performance creative & e-commerce

We scale 7 to 9-figure DTC brands using a creative-first, full-funnel approach that blends paid ads, landing pages, and performance-driven creative.

Brick isn’t a bloated agency juggling 50 clients. 

We’re a boutique team of senior strategists, creatives, and media buyers working closely with a small group of brands we genuinely believe in.

Everything we do is grounded in research, strategy, and execution. No juniors, no handoffs, no fluff.

We’ve driven over $400M in trackable revenue for some of the fastest-growing DTC brands. Our work has been featured in Entrepreneur, Social Media Examiner, and other leading publications. More importantly, 92% of the brands we work with hit all-time revenue highs in under 90 days.

If you're spending on ads but not seeing consistent growth, we can help. 

We focus on fixing the bottlenecks that are holding your brand back—whether it's creative fatigue, poor landing page performance, or inefficient account structure.

Message me “GROWTH” or check the link in my featured section to see how we work.

Toby W.

Struggling to scale Meta Ads?

If your ad account isn’t built for scale, efficiency breaks with spend.

After helping 250+ DTC brands scale profitably, we’ve documented the exact Meta Ads framework we use internally.

I’m giving it away for free.

Inside the guide, you’ll learn:

✅ How to structure Meta campaigns for predictable scale
✅ A repeatable creative testing system to find winners faster
✅ Where most ad accounts leak performance as spend increases
✅ How to scale while protecting ROAS & CPA

If you want your Meta account set up to scale, this is for you.

To get a copy:

• Connect with me
• Like this post
• Comment “META”

I’ll send it straight to your inbox.

Toby Waller

I help eCom brands scale past $25M/yr with Ads + Retention. $450M+ in revenue | Moto, Leica, Kodak, Drake + 200+ more.

Most fashion brands don’t have a media buying problem.
 
They have a creative volume problem.

9/10 brands we audit aren’t testing anywhere near enough variety to let Meta do its job.

If your current approach looks like this:

 • Re-running the same carousel until it dies
 • 1–2 “hero” concepts per collection
 • Creative testing based on gut feel, not structure

You’re capping scale - even if performance looks fine.

I’ve pulled together 100+ high-converting ad creatives used by top-performing fashion brands to unlock scale through volume + variety.

Want access?

Like + comment “Fashion” and DM me - I'll reply with the deck.

Most beauty & wellness brands fail to scale because they:

🚫 Keep using the same ad angles
🚫 Don’t test enough different creative formats
🚫 Don't have a robust ideation process for new ideas

This swipe file fixes all of that...

100+ high-performing ad examples you need to test now for your beauty brand.

Want it? 

1: Like this post 
2. Comment ‘Beauty’
3. DM Me & I'll reply with the swipe file

Creative volume isn't your problem.

Most brands think they need 100 new ads per month.

What they actually need: 7-10 truly distinct creative angles.

We've catalogued 102 frameworks across every product category. 

The pattern is clear:

Winning accounts don't focus solely on volume.

They systematically test genuinely different approaches:

✅ Founder-led storytelling (not just "here's our story")
✅ Process/making-of content that builds product credibility
✅ Comparative positioning that reframes the category
✅ Lifestyle integration that shows the transformation
✅ UGC that addresses specific objections
✅ Interactive formats that stop the scroll

The difference between a $50K/month account and a $500K/month account isn't creative output.

It's creative diversity.

DM me if you want me and my team to dive into a deep audit across your creative and paid ads...

We'll show you where you're leaving growth on the table and how to break through your next revenue ceiling.

Creative Variety

We’re hiring a world-class Creative Strategist 🚀

This isn’t a junior role.

This role comes with real responsibility.

You’ll own creative ideation, testing, and iteration for some of the most recognisable DTC brands in the world - working directly with founders and senior operators to unlock scale.

We’re looking for the best of the best:

• Research-led, data-driven, and ruthless about what actually works
• Thinks in angles, insights, and systems - not random tests
• Wants to be deeply involved in brand growth, not hidden in delivery
• Hungry to level up inside a team that actively invests in your development

If you live and breathe performance creative, and want real ownership, this will be a fit.

Drop me a message, and I'll share the next steps 

{We must be connected}

We're scaling brands spending $100k+ per day on Meta.

The common thread?

Relentless optimisation of the boring, structural pieces that most teams overlook - the ones that compound into real scale.

Here are 5 we see time and time again:

1. Elite understanding of your economics

What we usually inherit:
 → Arbitrary CAC or ROAS targets
 → Blended metrics masking true new customer performance
 → Scale constrained by misunderstood payback and cash flow dynamics

What needs to be implemented:
 → True new customer CAC + contribution margin modelling
 → Payback period targets aligned to cash flow and inventory cycles
 → Scale decisions driven by unit economics - not surface-level ROAS

2. Rebuilding shallow creative portfolios

What we usually inherit:
 → Over-reliance on one format (usually UGC/testimonials)
 → Similar messaging dressed up as “new ads”
 → No creative built intentionally for placements

What we implement:
 → A balanced creative mix (UGC, product, educational, lifestyle, hi-res)
 → Hooks and angles mapped to buyer awareness stages
 → Placement-specific creative (Feed ≠ Stories ≠ Reels)

3. Be obsessive about learning from your customers

What we usually inherit:
 → Assumption that the current product range is “good enough”
 → Creative and offers forced to carry product gaps
 → No structured customer feedback loop into product strategy

What needs to be implemented:
 → Systematic customer insight mining (reviews, comments, support, surveys)
 → Clear feedback loops into product improvements and new SKUs
 → Product and offer expansion based on proven demand signals

4. Align ads to intent-specific landing experiences

What we usually inherit:
 → Everything sent to a generic PDP
 → Messaging disconnect between ad and page
 → One-size-fits-all post-click experience

What we implement:
 → Angle-matched landing pages
 → Problem-solution pages for pain-led ads
 → Comparison pages for competitor-aware traffic

5. AOV and offer architecture

What we usually inherit:
 → No structured upsell or cross-sell system
 → Discounts as the only lever

What we implement:
 → Bundles built from real purchase behaviour
 → In-cart and post-purchase upsell systems
 → Subscription and continuity offers where it makes sense

The uncomfortable truth:

Most brands don’t stall because their media buying isn't being micro-managed.

They stall because their unit economics, product strategy, creative system, and offer architecture aren’t built to support scale.

You can patch tactics for a while.

But eventually, structure becomes the ceiling.

If growth feels capped… It’s usually hiding in one of these.

Hiring: Senior Creative Strategist

We're looking for someone who can own creative strategy for our 7-9 figure DTC brands.

You need to be:

✅ A savage with direct response creative strategy who proactively hunts for pockets of opportunity.

✅ Insanely granular with analysis - figuring out exactly why things work and why they don't.

✅ 10/10 attention to detail. Nothing slips through the net.

✅ A good eye for design principles and basic design skills.

✅ Someone who grinds and wants to help our clients dominate.

You'll own creative ideation, testing, and iteration for brands doing 8-figure months.

Real responsibility. Real influence on outcomes.

Fair warning: This isn't just a 9-5. 

This is ownership, accountability, and relentless focus on results.

If you're systems-oriented, research-driven, and ready to prove you're one of the best creative strategists in the game - message me.

$20M in 90 days.
From ~$170K to ~$210K per day.

LinkedIn's character limit won't let me write everything we actually did for this brand...

So here's the bullet list version for ya'll:

→ Analyzed 18 months of support tickets, had leadership call 50+ customers, audited every creative. Found they'd been speaking to their smallest, noisiest audience while ignoring the segment doing most of the buying. 
Enthusiasts cared about specs. Most buyers just wanted something that worked. Complete messaging repositioning across every touchpoint.

→ Separated testing and scaling environments. Dedicated testing campaigns with 15-20% of budget to prove creative before it touched scaling budgets. Winners graduated to scaling campaigns optimized for scale, not learning.

→ Killed competing campaigns creating auction overlap. Consolidated to a few core campaigns with clear objectives. Account simplification unlocked efficiency improvements before we touched creative.

→ Shifted from polished brand content to raw founder UGC. iPhone videos with authentic storytelling outperformed $5K studio productions. 35% higher engagement, 28% lower CPA.

→ Leant into angular diversity, not volume for volume sake. When one angle fatigued, others kept performing because they reached different audiences.

→ Expanded to Canada, UK, Australia with localized creative and offer testing. Added 30% to total spend at maintained efficiency.

→ Tested offer structure over lazy discounting. BOGO frameworks, product bundles that increased AOV 23%, threshold offers. A $100 product with $20 of bonus items converts better than the same product at $80 while protecting margin.

→ Rebuilt landing pages as advertorials. Improved site speed (mobile 13→66, desktop 32→96) and implemented progressive disclosure for objection handling. Lifted CVR 18%.

→ Implemented systematic creative rotation. Monitored frequency caps, CTR degradation, and hook rate decay. Refreshed at the angle level, not the ad level.

→ Built feedback loops between creative performance and product messaging. What worked in ads informed email, SMS, and site copy. What converted on landing pages informed new creative angles.

→ Got global CVR to 2.8% (previous peak was 1.9%). The compounding effect of better traffic quality, aligned messaging, faster site speed, and smarter offer structure.

The result: $20M in 90 days. 
37% YoY growth.
Healthy unit economics.

We didn't chase breakthroughs. We stacked optimizations.

Better structure + authentic creative + smarter offers + post-click experience = better efficiency = more scale.

Most brands try to scale before they've built the foundation. 

They add budget to broken systems and wonder why performance degrades.

Research isn't sexy. Account audits aren't glamorous. 

But they're the difference between growth that scales and growth that stalls.

Our goal isn't a 100-client agency.

Far from it. 

It's to be the most effective partner for a small group of elite brands.

That's it.

I'm watching my team execute at a level I didn't think was possible. 

Media buyers, creative strategists, email team - all moving in lockstep.

Besides the metrics. Here's what really tells me we're onto something:

- Clients introducing us to their network unprompted 
- Clients asking if we need testimonials (not the other way around) 
- DMs from partners saying they've never seen returns like this

All three happened this week. 

From brands we only started with in Q4/Q1.

The compound effect when you align the right people around the right clients is absurd.

You found a winner. Congrats. 

Now what?

It wasn’t luck.
It was a signal.

Most brands miss this.

They scale creative without understanding why it worked.

They recycle winners instead of reverse-engineering them.

Here’s the 4-step system we use to scale Meta ad accounts from $50k to $500k/month:

✅ Review the top 20 ads
✅ Run a message + visual analysis
✅ Extract scroll-stopping hooks, angles & motifs
✅ Brief 5–10 net-new concepts to test

It’s simple. It’s scalable. And it compounds over time.

We recently used this exact process to help an apparel brand unlock their biggest month ever.

Reverse Engineer

Every week, I audit accounts spending $100K > $1m/month+ on Meta.

They’re “testing aggressively.”

But here’s what that actually means in practice:

→ 5 UGC creators saying the same hook in different kitchens
→ 3 versions of the founder story with new B-roll
→ 4 testimonial cuts with the same message
→ 6 statics with one value prop in different colours

18 ads launched.
3 concepts tested.

This is the illusion of testing - tons of output, zero hypothesis diversity.

Takeaway: More ads don’t equal more insights. 
Without angle diversity, you’re just repeating yourself louder.

Your best creative has 10X more juice left in it than you think. 

Here's how to extract it:

Video ads:

New hooks (change text overlay or reshoot opening 3 seconds)
Swap in different leads while keeping the rest identical
Same script, different creators
Change b-roll (especially powerful for AI VO ads)
Speed up/slow down pacing
Cut to core message or extend with more proof
Test different testimonials

Static ads:
Winning visual + new headlines
Winning headline + new visuals

For native-style ads: 
Use AI tools to swap the person/main subject across demographics

The key: 
Change one variable at a time.

This is how you get more from each creative winner.

Most brands see a winner and spend a week building something new from scratch.

The sophisticated approach treats iteration like a controlled experiment.

$20.1M in sales & 39% YoY growth. 
A huge part of that came from our Google Ads strategy. 
Here's the full breakdown ⤵

The foundational mistake most brands make:

They jump to tactics without understanding what they're optimizing for.

We spent weeks in research before acting:

✅ Multi-year search trends to map demand curves 
✅ Profitability mapping across every SKU 
✅ Competitor analysis on creative diversity and offers 
✅ Landing page audit to identify where traffic was dying

This research revealed the core problem:

Google's PMax algorithm was optimizing for volume, not profit.

Their consolidated campaigns funnelled 60%+ of budget into low-AOV purchases (£25-£40) while starving high-margin hero products (£150-£250).

Classic algorithm behaviour.

More conversions = better performance in Google's eyes.

Even if those conversions are killing your margins.

Here's what we did:

1. Product Segmentation by Profit Architecture

Split PMax into three distinct campaigns:
✅ High-AOV hero products (£150-£250) 
✅ High-margin seasonal bestsellers (40%+ margins) 
✅ Volume drivers (for retargeting and list building)

Each with separate budgets, creatives, and bidding.

Result: 45% lower CPA on high-AOV products.

2. The Full Seasonal Cycle (Not Just "Scale During Peak")

Most brands turn budgets up in November and call it seasonality strategy.

We ran a three-phase cycle:

Phase 1 - Pre-Season Momentum (October) Early-bird campaigns 30 days before peak demand. Locked in conversions before competition heated up.

Phase 2 - Aggressive Peak Scaling (Nov-Dec) Increased budgets 92% while holding 4X ROAS. This is the critical bit - most brands either under-scale (leave money on table) or over-scale (kill profitability).

Phase 3 - Post-Season Retargeting (Jan) Extended revenue cycle by converting browsers who didn't buy during peak. Captured an additional 15-20% of peak revenue.

3. PMax Creative Rotation

Test 3-4 new variants every 10-14 days 
Scale winners across all campaigns within 48 hours 
Kill underperformers after 7 days

4. Landing Page Segmentation by Intent

Generic product pages = generic conversion rates.

We built dedicated pages for: 
✅ Seasonal traffic (messaging tailored to "right now" demand) 
✅ High-AOV browsers (heavy social proof, urgency, risk reversal) 
✅ Returning visitors (bundle offers, loyalty messaging)

The bottom line:

Most brands have a scaling problem because they have a precision problem.

Google Ads will happily spend your budget.

It won't spend wisely unless you force constraints that align algorithm behavior with profit goals.

Segmentation isn't a tactic. It's a forcing function.

I've seen brands with 100+ active ads struggle to break $500K/month. And brands with 50 scale past $5M. 
The difference?

One is making more ads. The other is testing more angles.

Creative strategy isn't about volume. It's about angular diversity.

Here's what that means:

Most brands think they need "more creative." So they brief their team:

"Make 10 new ads this month."

What they get back: 
10 variations of the same concept. Different hooks, different B-roll, maybe different talent. 

But fundamentally the same psychological approach.

That's not 10 ads. That's one angle with 10 executions.

An angle is the core strategic premise. 

The "why should I care" that everything else hangs on.

"This product solves [specific pain point]" = one angle
"This product delivers [aspirational outcome]" = different angle
"This product works differently than [expected solution]" = different angle
"You're already doing [behavior], this makes it better" = different angle
"Everyone else is wrong about [belief]" = different angle

Each angle appeals to different psychology, performs in different audiences, and fatigues independently.

What I see working at scale:

The brands spending $500K+ monthly? 

They're running 8-12 distinct angles simultaneously. Each angle might have 2-3 executions, but the strategic diversity is in the angles, not the volume.

They're not asking "Can we make more content?"

They're asking "What angles haven't we tested?"

Pain point vs aspiration. Social proof vs founder story. Education vs entertainment. Problem-unaware vs solution-aware.

When one angle fatigues, the others keep performing because they're reaching fundamentally different audience psychology.

The brands stuck at $200K are making their 47th iteration of the same winning ad.

The brands at $3M are testing their 9th completely different approach.

Your creative production bottleneck isn't volume. 

It's your angle diversity.

You don't need 50 ads a month. 

You need 5 genuinely different angles, each executed 2-3 ways.

Stop counting ads. Start counting angles.

This supplement brand was stuck selling to gym bros. 

We helped them hit $595k/month by talking to real people.

In early 2025, they came to us with solid traction in a niche audience, think high-protein macros, muscle recovery, bodybuilding lingo.

But our research showed something very different:

Their real growth potential wasn’t in gyms.

It was in busy, health-conscious women who wanted convenience, nutrition, and taste.

So we did what most agencies don’t:

We stopped guessing... and started listening.

🧠 Step 1: Deep Consumer Research (Not Just Surveys)

We went beyond surface-level insights:

✅ Poured through past survey data
✅ Analyzed 1000s of customer support tickets
✅ Reviewed post-purchase survey feedback via KnoCommerce
✅ Had the founders call customers to uncover why they really bought
✅ Cross-referenced with Google search data to understand intent

Insight: 60%+ of their customer base wasn’t fitness-focused... they were professionals, busy parents, women 30–50 who just wanted a quick, tasty, healthy option.

🧭 Step 2: Repositioning the Product Around Real-World Value

We rewrote the narrative from “macros & muscle recovery” to:

“Delicious, healthy breakfast in under 30 seconds”
“A filling, guilt-free way to start your day”
“Keeps cravings down. Keeps energy up.”

We rebuilt creative to match:

UGC + Reels from real customers, not influencers

Copy that focused on feelings (satiety, ease, flavor)

Lifestyle ads: women eating on-the-go, at work, with kids

The same product.

But it finally spoke to the people actually buying it.

🚀 Step 3: Creative x Media Buying Synergy

Most brands create ads in a vacuum.

We built a feedback loop between creative and media buying.

Here’s how:

Creative briefs were built using top-performing hooks and past winners

Weekly reviews to identify trends

Modular creative approach: Swappable hooks, offers, CTAs

Result?

35% higher engagement and 28% lower CPA with Reels vs. static.

📊 Step 4: Strategic Scaling, Not Spray & Pray

We scaled winners slowly: +20-30% budget every 2–3 days

Doubled down on ASC+ and segmented campaigns by persona

Recycled & refreshed past winners for retargeting

Built persona-specific landing pages aligned with the new messaging

We didn’t just “spend more.”

We created a scalable system.

🧪 Step 5: CRO & Offer Testing That Moved the Needle

Built new landing pages per persona (conversion uplift: +18%)

Simplified navigation + branding for first-time buyers

Introduced tiered discounts to increase AOV

Added post-purchase surveys to fuel future creative

Raised site speed scores from 13 → 66 (mobile)

💥 Results:
282% increase in monthly revenue YoY
$595k revenue 
34% increase in subscriptions
22% drop in CPA

If your brand has plateaued or you're only speaking to one version of your customer, you're leaving scale on the table.

Everyone’s seen IM8 broken down by now.

But most people are still missing what actually made it work.

After spending time properly dissecting their execution, it’s clear that a lot of the real leverage points are either misunderstood or completely glossed over.

What they built isn’t impressive because of the headline numbers.

It’s impressive because of how deliberately the system was designed.

A few things in particular are worth studying:

1. Their “Creator Army” is a production system, not an influencer play

IM8 didn’t rely on a handful of big names and hope for virality.

They built a distributed creator operation:

• 50–200+ micro-creators
• Hundreds to thousands of assets per month
• Centralised briefs + creative direction
• Licensing top performers for paid
• Small-budget testing at scale
• Scaling only what proves performance

Creators aren’t a channel.

They’re a manufacturing layer for paid media.

This is why they can sustain 3,000+ active creative variations without losing focus on one core offer.

Most brands bottleneck on creative.

IM8 engineered the bottleneck out of the system.

2. Offer depth, not product breadth

IM8 didn’t scale by launching more SKUs.

They did the opposite:

One core product.
No flavours.
One primary bundle.

Then they tested thousands of angles against the same offer.

Depth of offer > width of catalogue.

This is why they can run thousands of ads without fragmenting learnings or operational focus.

Most brands expand product lines to chase growth.

IM8 expanded message density around a single economic engine.

3. Funnel congruence is what unlocked 80% subscription conversion

Their subscription rate isn’t one clever trick.

It’s alignment across the entire funnel:

Defaults to subscription.
Pricing favours subscription.
Messaging frames transformation, not purchase.
Social proof validates the subscription choice.
Bonuses + guarantees remove risk.

Every element reinforces the same decision.

Most brands optimise pages in isolation.

IM8 optimised the system.

4. Their stubborn obsession with LTV is what makes everything else work

Subscription isn’t an add-on.

It is the business model.

That changes everything:

How aggressive they can be on CAC.
How much they can test.
How fast they can scale.

They’re not optimising for short-term ROAS.

They’re optimising for long-term economics.

That’s what gives them strategic freedom.

The bigger lesson:

IM8 didn’t win by being more aggressive.

They won by being more deliberate.

They removed complexity.

They built infrastructure for creative scale.

They aligned the entire funnel around lifetime value.

They let the algorithm handle targeting and focused humans on messaging.

Most brands are still trying to scale ads.

IM8 scaled a system.

That’s the difference.

Think your account is hitting a ceiling?

Here's how to tell if creative is actually the bottleneck👇🏼

Most brands blame Meta's algorithm, iOS, or audience saturation when performance plateaus.

But 90% of the time, the problem is creative infrastructure.

Here's a simple diagnostic you can run in 10 minutes:

Check #1: Pull your creative library

Count how many unique concepts you've tested in the last 90 days.

Not variations. Not hook swaps. Actual distinct concepts.

Compare to your monthly spend:

$10-30k/month → you need 7-10 concepts
$30-60k/month → you need 15-20 concepts
$60-100k/month → you need 20-30 concepts

If your number is 50% below these benchmarks, creative volume is your constraint.

Check #2: Look at your top 5 performing ads

How long have they been running?

If your best performers are 30+ days old and you don't have fresh winners graduating to replace them, you're one fatigue cycle away from a performance crash.

Healthy accounts have new winners graduating weekly. Stagnant accounts ride 2-3 ads until they die, then scramble.

Check #3: Calculate your hit rate

Total concepts tested ÷ concepts that scaled profitably = hit rate

If your hit rate is above 40%, you're not testing aggressively enough. 

You're playing it safe with concepts too similar to what's already working.

If your hit rate is below 15%, your creative strategy is broken. 

You're guessing, not testing hypotheses.

Sweet spot: 20-30% hit rate with high testing volume.

Check #4: Review your account structure

Are you testing new creative in the same campaigns where you're scaling winners?

If yes, you can't diagnose what's working. 

When performance drops, you don't know if:

Your winner fatigued
New tests are dragging down averages
Budget increases triggered learning phases
Testing and scaling need separate environments.

Check #5: Audit your production cadence

When was the last time you launched new creative?

If it's been more than 7 days, you don't have a production system, you have an ad hoc scramble.

Sustainable scale requires predictable creative flow. 

Weekly launches minimum at $30k+ spend.

What your answers mean:

If you failed 3+ of these checks, creative infrastructure is your bottleneck.

The fix isn't complicated, but it requires investment: 

→ Separate testing from scaling campaigns 
→ Build a weekly creative calendar 
→ Hire or contract production capacity that matches your spend 
→ Set clear kill criteria so bad creative dies fast 
→ Accept that 70-80% of tests will fail

The pattern I see constantly:

Brands scale spend from $15k to $60k without scaling creative production.

They wonder why they hit a ceiling at <$100k in spend.

It's not the market. It's that their creative engine can't support the volume their budget requires.

You can't deploy $2,000/day efficiently with 4 active creatives. The math doesn't work.

Run this diagnostic on your account right now.

If creative volume is your constraint, you know exactly what to fix.

Creative is your targeting mechanism. 

Audience selection has become largely irrelevant. 

Meta's ASC, Google's Performance Max, and TikTok's Smart+ all use creative assets as the primary signal for audience discovery. 

Manual targeting parameters have minimal impact on delivery. Most brands haven't rebuilt their production systems to match this shift. 

They're still optimizing for a model that no longer exists. 

The previous paradigm: 
Precision targeting, limited hero assets, long development cycles, targeting-led optimization. 

The current reality: 
Broad targeting, systematic testing infrastructure, rapid iteration, creative-led optimization. 

This creates a specific operational challenge: 

Brands need systems capable of 8-10 testable concepts weekly while maintaining strategic coherence. 

Our implementation framework: 

1. Strategic testing allocation - Structure your testing program to identify patterns, not just winners. 

Run creative against intentionally diverse audience segments within your broad targeting to understand which creative angles drive efficiency in which contexts. 

This reveals creative-audience fit patterns that inform production priorities. 

2. Systematic variation - Build a tagging taxonomy that tracks creative variables independently (hook type, problem framing, social proof format, CTA style). 

This lets you isolate which specific elements drive performance, not just which complete ads work. 

Most brands test whole ads and learn nothing transferable. 

3. Internal capability development - Train media buyers on basic design tools.

Use AI for headline variation at scale (20+ versions from each winning angle). 

This removes production bottlenecks from the testing pipeline. 

4. Offshore execution leverage - Deploy offshore talent for variation work, performance tagging, and competitive analysis. 

Reserve internal capacity for strategic decisions and creative direction. 

Results from a recent implementation: Beauty brand constrained by production capacity. 

30-day outcome: creative output increased from 20 to 60 monthly assets. 

The structural advantage belongs to mid-market brands ($25M-$250M annual). 

They can execute creative decisions without enterprise approval friction. 

The platforms have fundamentally changed the leverage points for paid acquisition. 

Brands that rebuild their creative systems accordingly will compound advantages over time.

Co-Founder @ Hydra | Co-Founder @ Howl Campfires | I Help Agencies & Professional Service Firms Scale Revenue & Profit

I help agencies, and consultants B2B service providers scale their revenue & profitability. 

My track record speaks for itself:

- I've helped 250+ agencies scale in the last 36 months. 
- Personally built 3 businesses to multiple millions in annual revenue. 
- 1 successful exit of my own, and 3 among our advisory team. 

How I can help you scale your business: 

1. Our D.N.A. Days

Where you come in person to Nashville, TN and sit alongside myself and our team, where we’ll complete a full audit of your business, establish your goals, and design a clear roadmap to solve what’s holding you back from scaling. 

Then, we give you our exact systems & processes to make it reality. 

2. Our Mastermind Program, the Hydra Growth Collective. 

This is our flagship offering that bundles all our proven systems, lead-gen, ops, and AI frameworks into weekly group calls, a private community, a full curriculum library, and two live, in-person growth intensives each year.

3. The Hydra Portfolio 

An invite-only offer for a minority stake of your business where we invest capital and work hands-on as part of your management team until we both win.

If you’re running a service business in the $500k–$10M range and want predictable scale, not more theory, fluff, or advice that keeps you spinning your wheels…

DM me “grow” to learn more. 

Also founder at HOWL Campfires, a DTC brand. We're a 100% Made In The USA, patented, portable propane fire pit line. 

Learn more about how we keep the forest & fire alive for generations to come at www.howlcampfires.com

Nicholas Kirchner

Agencies charging under $10K have a leverage problem.

At $3K/month:

->You need 34 clients to hit $100K/month
->34 clients need ~3 account managers
->3 account managers = $15-20K/month overhead

Gross margin: ~50%

At $10K/month:

->You need 10 clients to hit $100K/month
->10 clients need 1 account manager
->1 account manager = ~$10K/month overhead

Gross margin: 65-75%

Same revenue.

Wildly different business.

The $10K barrier isn't about confidence.

It's about building a business that doesn't require 3x the headcount to scale.

Built 3 Agencies | 1 Exit | Founder @ Hydra | Founder @ HOWL Campfires

Lead Magnets are the 80/20 of generating new business on LinkedIn. 

But there’s one major problem: Managing follow up to turn those opt-ins into real sales opportunities. 

Working with 250+ agencies, consultants & B2B service providers, I see the same problem everywhere. 

You post a lead magnet on LinkedIn, get engagement, then I get asked the same question... 

“Do I really have to hunt down every commenter, open their profile, and manually add them to my CRM?”

Until recently, the answer was… yes.

Until I found out about Copper. 

I'll be honest, I was skeptical. 

Another CRM claiming "LinkedIn integration"?

But then I tested their Chrome extension.

You know when you post content and get 47 comments? 

Instead of opening 47 tabs to stalk profiles and copy contact info...

One click imports everything: 

→ Full LinkedIn profile data 
→ Email addresses
→ Phone numbers and company details 
→ Job change notifications when they move

But here's the interesting part: it works while you're already on LinkedIn. 

No platform switching.

Other solutions cost thousands of dollars a month or are far too complex that it becomes clunky. 

Copper? 

My new workflow:

→ Post lead magnet 
→ See who engages 
→ Open the Copper Chrome Extension sidebar
→ Click import 
→ They're in my CRM with full contact data
→ I can send automated emails & progress them through my pipeline

Look, I've seen companies post great content then lose 90% of leads because getting the follow-up infrastructure in place takes forever.

Worth giving this tool a shot though if you're serious about LinkedIn prospecting.

And reminder, your lead magnets are only as good as your follow-up speed and ability to convert them into sales opportunities. 

P.S. If you want this capability, snag a 14 day free trial in the comments

This post is sponsored by Copper CRM.

Built 3 Agencies | 1 Exit | Founder @ Hydra Consulting | Founder @ HOWL Campfires

Competitors have tried copying Hydra more times than I can count.

They copy our positioning. 
Our messaging. 
Our offers.

Then they pivot. 
To AI. 
To a different model. 
To something else entirely.

Here's why the copies don't stick:

They copy the surface, not the substance.

You can screenshot our website. 

You can't screenshot years of pattern recognition from advising 250+ agencies.

They're not invested in the outcome.

We know every teammate on our clients' teams. 

We're embedded in their businesses. 

That level of investment isn't something you can fake or fast-track.

They don't have the reps.

I've had multiple clients 3x their businesses. 

I've helped oversee agency exits. 

I sold my own agency at 21. 

That context shows up in the advice. 

You can't copy experience.

They chase trends. 

We solve problems.

When something shiny appears, they pivot. 

We stay focused on what actually moves the needle for agency owners. 

Boring wins.

TAKEAWAY:

For years I worried about competitors. 

After watching them come and go while we kept growing, I realized the best defense isn't secrecy, it's depth. 

Go so deep that copying the surface is useless.

I'd rather be hard to copy than hard to find. 

That's why we invest in relationships, not flashy marketing. 

P.S. Competition is a compliment. 

Keep building.

The middle market kills agencies

I watched my margins collapse trying to serve the middle market.

Here's the trap nobody warns you about.

When you're starting out, mid-market clients feel like a win. 

They have real budgets. 

They're not as demanding as enterprise. 

They're not as price-sensitive as small businesses.

It feels like the sweet spot.

It's actually quicksand.

The middle gets squeezed from both sides.

They have enterprise expectations without enterprise budgets. 

They want the polish of a big agency and the prices of a small one.

Your talent doesn't fit.

Junior people can't handle their complexity. 

Senior people are too expensive for what they'll pay. 

You end up with a mismatched team doing mediocre work.

Your ops get complicated.

Too custom for templates. 

Not profitable enough for white-glove. 

Every project is a one-off that eats your time.

You can't differentiate.

A thousand agencies serve the middle. 

You're competing on nothing but relationships and luck.

I had to pick a lane. 

High volume, low ticket. 

Or low volume, high ticket. 

The middle was killing me.

My .02 is to pick an extreme & own it.

I'd rather be too expensive for some than affordable for everyone. 

That's why I went high-ticket. 

And I never looked back.

- N

5 goals every 7-figure agency owner should have for 2026:

(#3 might surprise you) 

1. Build a leadership team that can run without you for 30 days

→ Your agency shouldn't need you to survive

2. Create one irresistible offer that sells itself

→ Stop competing on price. Start competing on value/

3. Fire 20% of your clients

→ The wrong clients cost more than they pay

4. Document every system in your business

→ If it's in your head, it's holding you hostage

5. Take 4 weeks off without checking Slack

→ Freedom isn't optional. It's the point.

The agency owners who win in 2026 won't be the ones who work the hardest...

They'll be the ones who built something that works without them.

Agency owners love to blame their niche.

"Gyms don't have budget." 
"Roofers are flaky." 
"E-com is too competitive."

Your problem isn't your niche.

It's that you're selling to the smallest companies charging $2-3K/month.

The result is always:

-> High churn (they go out of business)
-> Annoying clients (they micromanage because $2K is a lot to them)
-> Slim margins (no room for error)

Same niche. 

Different segment.

Go from "gym owners" to "gym owners with 3+ locations." 

Go from "e-com brands" to "e-com brands doing $3M+."

Same service. 

5x the price. 

Better clients.

The niche isn't the problem. 

The market segment is.

Everyone asks "how do I get to $10M?"

Better question: why?

After helping 250+ agencies scale, and watching some blow past $10M while being miserable, here's what I've come to believe:

In my opinion, agency nirvana is $3M in revenue with $1M+ in profit.

Here's why:

1. It's real.

$3M isn't a lifestyle business. It's substantial. You have a real team, real clients, real infrastructure. 

2. It's systemized.

At this level, with the right structure, the business can run without you in the day-to-day. You're not the bottleneck on every decision.

3. You can remove yourself.

With a few key hires, you can step back. Work on the business instead of in it. Travel. Start something else. 

4. You have options.

Hold it as a cash-flow vehicle. Use the profits to fund other ventures. Or sell it. At $3M with strong margins, you have a real asset.

5. Beyond this, the game changes.

Past $3-5M, you're committing to something different. More people. More complexity. More problems. Some want that. But know it's a different game with different tradeoffs.

TAKEAWAY:

For years I thought bigger was better. 

After seeing what "success" actually looks like at different levels, I realized the goal isn't maximum revenue. 

It's maximum freedom at sustainable profit.

I'd rather own a $3M agency that prints cash than a $10M agency that owns me. That's why I help people build for freedom, not just scale. And I always will.

P.S. What's your number? Curious to hear

I just crunched some numbers on Hydra client growth in 2025...

Here's 5 of my favorites: 

$1.19M ➝ $3.78M ARR (218% growth) 
$3.95M ➝ $5.05M ARR (28% growth) 
$852k ➝ $1.92M ARR (125% growth) 
$276k ➝ $1.16M ARR (320% growth) 
$492k ➝ $1.34M ARR (172% growth) 
$804k ➝ $1.25M ARR (55% growth)

😮‍💨

Your agency's offer doesn't need to be unique.

There are 50+ agencies selling the exact same thing as you.

The difference is execution.

If you're an agency that:

->Spends $1K/day on ads
->Closes at 25-35%
->Has a $50K+ LTV

You'll beat every competitor with a "better" offer who can't acquire clients.

Unique mechanism matters for conversion.

But distribution beats differentiation every time.

The agency spending $30K/month on ads will outgrow the agency with the "perfect" offer spending $0.

Execution > Innovation.

Here's the actual math on acquiring agency clients through paid ads:

→$3,500/month ad spend 
→$350 cost per booked call 
→10 calls booked 
→75% show rate
→8 live calls 
→20% close rate 
→1.5 new clients

Example average contract: $4K/month × 12 months = $48K LTV

CAC: $2,333 

LTV:CAC = 20:1

One new client per month pays for your ads 14x over.

The problem isn't the math. 

The math is incredible.

The problem is most agencies can't get these numbers because:

→Their funnel speaks to Level 3 buyers (not Level 5)
→Their VSL follows templates their prospects have seen 100x
→Their ads look like every other agency's ads

We fix all three.

Want to see the full model on how it works? 

DM me "MATH".

Most founders don't have a time problem.

They have a trust problem.

→ They don't trust their team to handle client calls
→ They don't trust the process to work without them
→ They don't trust that "good enough" can still be great

I spent 2 years being the bottleneck in my own business.

Every decision ran through me. Every client issue landed on my desk.

I thought I was being responsible.

I was actually being controlling.

The shift happened when I asked myself:

"Am I building a company or feeding my ego?"

Harsh question. But necessary.

Here's what I learned:

→ Your team will make mistakes. Let them.
→ Some clients will leave. That's okay.
→ The business needs to survive without you. That's the goal.

The moment I started trusting others, the business grew faster than when I was "in control."

- N

3 shifts that can actually move the needle in 2026: 

1. Chasing revenue is a trap.

I've watched agency owners hit their "number" and feel nothing. 

Because they were playing someone else's game. 

2. Revenue is a byproduct. 

Clarity on why you're building comes first.

More leads won't save a broken model.

The agencies I've seen struggle hardest are the ones obsessed with top-of-funnel. 

Meanwhile their fulfillment is bleeding, margins are thin, and they're one client departure from chaos. 

Fix the engine before you floor the gas.

3. Sustainable output requires intentional recovery.

This one took me longer to learn. 

You can white-knuckle it for a while. 

But it catches up. 

The owners running the most efficient operations I know are deliberate about stepping away.

If you're still grinding, that's a signal worth examining.

Sometimes the most productive thing you can do is...

Go touch some grass.

7 signs you're finally ready to scale your agency:

1. You've stopped saying yes to every client

→ Desperation is gone. 

Standards are in.

2. Your team solves problems without asking you.

→ You've hired thinkers, not task-takers.

3. You know your numbers cold.

→ Revenue, profit margins, CAC, LTV. 

No guessing.

4. You've fired a client in the last 90 days

→ You value your sanity over their check.

5. You have 3+ months of runway

→ You can invest in growth without panic.

6. Your best clients came from referrals

→ You've earned trust. 

Now you're reaping it.

7. You're bored with where you are

→ Comfort became uncomfortable. 

That's the signal.

Scaling isn't about doing more.

It's about having the foundation to do bigger.

Stop comparing your year 2 to someone else's year 7.

I see it all the time.

Founders beating themselves up because they haven't hit some arbitrary milestone.

→ "I should have more clients by now"
→ "I should be more profitable"
→ "I should have figured this out already"

Here's the truth:

You're not behind. 

You're just on a different timeline.

I bootstrapped my first agency from $150 to a sale in 24 months.

But for the first 12 months? I was grinding, doubting, and questioning everything.

What I know now:

→ Every "overnight success" has years of invisible work behind it
→ Comparison is the fastest way to kill your momentum
→ Your only competition is who you were yesterday

The founders who win aren't the ones who started first.

They're the ones who didn't quit.

6 habits that quietly kill agency growth:

1. Saying "I'll just do it myself"

→ You're not saving time. You're stealing it from strategy.

2. Checking email before 10am

→ You start the day reacting instead of creating.

3. Hiring for skill instead of culture

→ Skills can be taught. 

Attitude can't.

4. Avoiding hard conversations

→ That thing you're not saying? 

Everyone already knows it.

5. Working IN the business instead of ON it

→ Busy isn't the same as building.

6. Celebrating revenue instead of profit

→ Top line feeds ego. 

Bottom line feeds freedom.

Growth doesn't die from big mistakes.

It dies from small habits repeated daily.

Tough advice I give agency owners:

You must fire yourself from client work.

This is hard because…you started your agency because you were good at something. 

Creative.

Ads.

Email. 

But here's why staying in delivery is killing your business:

1. You become the bottleneck.

When every deliverable needs your hands on it, growth stops at your personal capacity. You're not running a business, you're running a job with employees.

2. Your best hours go to the wrong work.

Strategy, sales, systems, leadership, that's CEO work. When you're deep in client deliverables, that work gets scraps. Or nothing.

3. You can't see the business clearly.

When you're inside the work, you lose perspective. 

You miss patterns. 

You react instead of anticipate. 

Distance creates clarity.

4. Your team never levels up.

If you're always the backstop, they never have to get better. 

Your presence stunts their growth. 

Sometimes stepping back is the best training you can give.

5. You're building something unsellable.

If the business needs you in delivery to function, it's not an asset. 

It's a liability with your face on it. 

Buyers pay for systems, not founders.

TAKEAWAY:

For years I told myself clients needed me. 

After forcing myself out of delivery, uncomfortably, before I felt ready, everything improved. 

Better work from the team. 

Better thinking from me. 

Better business overall.

I'd rather build something that runs without me than be indispensable to something that can't grow. 

That's why I fire myself from roles. 

And I always will.

P.S. If you disappeared for 30 days, would client work still ship? If not, that's your constraint.

There's 2 camps of agencies right now: 

1. Breakout growth, setting new records month after month. 

2. Struggling (in decline) or flat. 

What's the difference? 

1. Has fully committed to retaining clients long term WHILE having strong, non-negotiable focus on business development. 

2. Has not figured out retention and has half in half out commitment on new client acquisition. 

You can survive with 1 piece (acquisition or retention) not figured out, but not with both.

For the past few years, I've helped dozens of agency owners scale past 7 figures in ARR. 

The pattern I keep seeing?

Most agencies don't have a client acquisition problem.

They have a systems problem.

→ No video sales letter that pre-sells before the call 
→ No funnel that books qualified leads automatically 
→ No email sequences that nurture and convert 
→ No tracking to know what's actually working

So we built something to fix all of it.

Introducing the Done-For-You VSL Sprint:

We'll build your entire client acquisition machine in 30-45 days.

What you get: 

→ Custom VSL script + full post-production editing 
→ High-converting landing page with calendar integration 
→ Complete email nurture system (follow-up, pre-call, no-show recovery) 
→ Ad creatives ready to run
→ Full tracking & attribution setup 

All you do is record the video. 

We handle everything else.

→This isn't a course. 
→This isn't consulting. 
→This isn't a template. 
→This is us building your funnel FOR you.

If you're an agency owner ready to stop chasing leads and start attracting them systematically....

DM me "VSL" and I'll send the details.

Only taking on two builds of these per month for the time being.

After advising 250+ agency owners, here's advice that always gets pushback:

Stop sending proposals.

Only present on a call. 

Why? 

1. Sent proposals invite comparison shopping. 

The moment you send a PDF, you become a commodity. 

Prospects print it out next to three others and compare line items. 

You're not selling transformation anymore. 

You're selling tasks.

2. They delay decisions. 

"Let me review the proposal and get back to you." 

That's the death sentence. 

Momentum dies in inboxes. 

The longer they sit with a document, the colder they get.

3. They answer questions nobody asked. 

Most proposals are 80% filler. 

Scope breakdowns. 

Team bios. 

Case studies they won't read. 

You're padding because you're insecure about the price.

4. They remove you from the conversation. 

A proposal gets forwarded to people who weren't in the room. 

Now someone who doesn't know you is making judgments about your value based on a document.

For years I thought proposals showed professionalism. 

After watching close rates climb when we walked prospects through our process exclusively on calls, everything changed. 

Now I tell clients: 

If you can't close it in the room, your odds of success drop dramatically.

Unpopular opinion: agency "networking" is a waste of time.

Here's why I stopped going to industry events:

You're in a room full of sellers.

Agency conferences are agencies selling to agencies. 

Everyone's hunting. 

Nobody's buying. 

You spend 3 days collecting business cards from people who want your business, not the other way around.

Surface relationships don't convert.

"Great connecting!" messages go nowhere. 

The follow-up fizzles. 

You connected on nothing real. 

The relationship has no foundation.

Time is better spent on clients or finding new ones. 

Every hour at a conference is an hour not serving existing clients. 

Those clients refer. 

Those clients expand. 

Strangers in a ballroom don't.

Content scales. 

Handshakes don't.

Are there exceptions, OF COURSE. 

But one good LinkedIn post reaches more of your ideal audience than a week of conferences. 

And it keeps working while you sleep.

For years I thought I needed to "be seen" at events. 

After tracking where actual revenue came from, almost none traced back to conferences. 

It all came from ads, referrals, content, and existing clients.

I'd rather go deep with a few than shallow with many. 

That's why I skip most events. 

P.S. Track where your last 10 clients came from. If none came from networking events, maybe its time to stop going and re-allocate that budget elsewhere

taplio

The Battle

Toby W.

Nicholas Kirchner

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreToby W.'s LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNicholas Kirchner's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Toby W.

Nicholas Kirchner

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Toby W.'s LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreNicholas Kirchner's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreToby W.'s LinkedIn Performance