Video vs static creatives: the production-cost-per-ROI nobody calculates
The setup: Mobile app install offer. Video creatives convert better — everyone says so. But video takes 5x longer to produce. Is it worth it on a tight team?
The move: Tracked not just ROI but ROI-per-hour-of-production. Made 4 statics (~1 hr total) and 4 videos (~5 hrs total), ran both on $1,200.
The numbers (illustrative): Video: +31% ROI, clearly better front-end. Static: +19% ROI, worse per-impression. BUT: in the time it took to make 4 videos, we could've made ~20 statics and tested 5x more angles. The statics found 2 unexpected winners we'd never have guessed; video's hand-picked angles included a dud.
The lesson: Video wins per-creative but loses per-hour when you're testing. In the discovery phase, static's cheap iteration finds winning ANGLES faster. Once you know the angle, upgrade it to video to squeeze the last points.
What I'd do differently: I spent the first two weeks polishing videos of UNTESTED angles. Test the message cheap with statics, produce video only for proven winners. Production cost is part of ROI — a +31% creative that took 5 hours can lose to a +19% one you can make 20 of.
Arb Files
@ArbFiles