ADVOCACY / TECH POLICY

6,567 pledges. $1.52 each. 26 days. Not a dollar left unspent.

A 3-year-old advocacy org with no paid media history and $10,000 to build a public signatory base. One goal: convert strangers into public signatories. Here's exactly how we did it.

6,567
Total pledges
$1.52
Cost per pledge
1.97%
Conversion rate

Ten thousand dollars. Twenty-six days. One metric that mattered.

Most advocacy campaigns measure success in impressions and reach — proxies that feel good but don't actually prove anything. This client wasn't interested in proxies. They needed pledges: real people putting their name behind a commitment to responsible AI development. That's a conversion, with all the friction that implies. You have to stop someone mid-scroll, give them a reason to care about an issue they may not have thought about today, and ask them to take an action that requires a name and an email.

The budget was $10,000. The flight was 26 days. The target: as many pledges as possible at the lowest sustainable cost per result. No brand awareness objectives. No "let's build the funnel for next quarter." This was a direct response campaign with a hard deadline, a hard budget, and one number to hit.

Campaign Brief
Objective Website conversions (pledges)
Budget $10,000 (fixed)
Flight March 30 – April 25, 2026 (26 days)
North Star Lowest sustainable cost per pledge
Creative Image and video variants
Platform Meta (Facebook + Instagram)

No paid media history. One window. No second chances.

This organization had been operating for three years building credibility in AI policy circles — white papers, coalition relationships, earned media. They had never run a paid campaign. Their signatory base had grown through organic outreach: email lists, partner shares, conference sign-ups. That approach had a ceiling, and they'd hit it.

The pledge campaign had a hard deadline tied to a policy moment they couldn't move. There was no runway for a test-and-learn phase, no budget for a second attempt if the first one underperformed. The entire paid media history of this organization would be determined by one 26-day flight. That's not a constraint you manage around. That's the entire brief.

Before This Campaign
Paid history None — first paid campaign ever
Prior acquisition Email lists, partner shares, organic
Ceiling reached Yes — organic growth had plateaued
Deadline flexibility None — tied to external policy moment
Second attempt possible No — one budget, one window

Two audiences. Four creatives. One campaign that let the data decide.

A full-funnel Meta structure isn't complicated. But most campaigns don't actually follow it. This one did.

Track 1 — 79% of budget
Broad Targeting
Ages 25-55, unconstrained
$7,923
Spend
5,300
Pledges
$1.49
Cost per pledge
Why this worked
"Broad targeting is counterintuitive for advocacy campaigns. The instinct is to narrow — find the most likely converts and target only them. The data consistently shows the opposite: give Meta a large, unconstrained pool and it will find people who weren't in your interest-based segments but convert anyway. This is where 79% of budget ended up, as the campaign's own optimization shifted spend toward the segment that kept performing."
Track 2 — 21% of budget
Retargeting + Lookalike
Engaged audiences + 1% seed
$2,073
Spend
1,267
Pledges
$1.64
Cost per pledge
Why this worked
"Retargeting closes the loop. Someone who watched a video, visited the website, or engaged with content is already warm. This audience needed less convincing. The 1% lookalike added scale without sacrificing precision."

We came in with four creatives. One ran away with the budget.

Systematic creative testing isn't about having an opinion about what will work. It's about being willing to be wrong — and moving budget the moment the data tells you to.

Creative Format Distribution Pledges Cost Per Pledge Verdict
"It's Not Inevitable" Image Broad 425 $1.92 Winner — Most efficient
"Steering AI" Image Broad 561 $2.58 Strong — Volume leader
"Steering AI" Image Retargeting 182 $2.29 Solid — Right audience
"Trillionaires" Video Broad 56 $2.92 Underperformed — Deprioritized

By week two, the algorithm had reallocated. Image creatives were generating pledges at $1.49 to $1.92. The video — "Trillionaires" — was generating pledges at $2.92. We didn't override the data. We let it run the campaign. By the final week, 94%+ of spend was going to image creatives.

This is the part most campaigns get wrong. They build a video they're proud of and defend the budget allocation long past when the data says to move. The willingness to be ruthless about creative performance is what kept this campaign at $1.52 per pledge instead of $2.50+.

$9,995.98 spent. $10,000 budgeted. Every dollar converted.

6,567
Total pledges
People who put their name behind responsible AI
$1.52
Cost per pledge
6,567 pledges on $9,995.98 of spend
1.97%
Conversion rate
6,567 pledges against 332,733 impressions
115,871
People reached
Unique accounts exposed to the campaign
2.87x
Average frequency
Impressions per person reached over the flight
100%
Budget utilized
$9,995.98 of $10,000. Not a dollar wasted.
The broad ad set outperformed retargeting on cost per pledge across the full flight. 5,300 pledges at $1.49 each, against 1,267 pledges at $1.64 each on retargeting. This is what it looks like when the structure does the work.

A fixed budget isn't a constraint. It's a forcing function.

There's a version of this campaign that spends $10,000 and gets 3,000 pledges at $3.33 each. That version launches broad and retargeting at equal budget split, runs all four creatives at equal budget, and doesn't move allocation when the data comes in. That version is what happens when you set up a campaign and walk away.

What got this campaign to $1.52 per pledge was structure and discipline. The right funnel architecture from day one. A creative testing framework that was designed to produce a clear winner, not to validate a pre-existing opinion. And the willingness to let the algorithm — and the data — make the decisions that humans are usually too attached to their assumptions to make.

The broad targeting ad set alone generated 5,300 pledges at $1.49 each — cheaper than the retargeting segment. That's counterintuitive. The instinct in advocacy is to narrow: find the most likely converts and target only them. The data consistently shows the opposite. Give Meta a large, unconstrained pool and it finds people your interest-based segments would have never reached. That's not an accident. It's what the algorithm is built to do when you give it room.

01 / Audience
Broad targeting wins for advocacy. Counter-intuitive. Consistently true. Give Meta the room to find converters your interest segments would have missed.
02 / Format
Image beats video for conversion campaigns. Video builds awareness. When the goal is action, high-contrast static outperforms almost every time.
03 / Discipline
Creative testing only works if you're willing to kill the loser. The data pointed to the answer by week two. The answer only counts if you act on it.

One budget. One window. Six thousand people who didn't know this issue existed yesterday.

Fixed-flight advocacy campaigns, policy moments, cause launches — any situation where there's no second attempt. If the structure is right from day one, the data does the work. This is what that looks like.

Let's talk →