Playbook replay
Mid-flight budget reallocation
Ranks the live roster by what is actually converting, then moves the remaining budget onto it.
Run for Lumira, a demo brand we invented for this page. No customer data. Nothing here runs against a live account.
Every session here was run once and saved, against a demo brand or public data. On your own account Naise works from your brand voice, your campaigns and your connected channels, so it reasons about your data instead of a stand-in.
Engagement alone would rank the biggest creators first, which is exactly the wrong answer for a reallocation decision. Cost per engagement is the number that changes where the money goes.
Pulling live engagement for the active roster first, then joining it to the recorded cost per creator so the ranking is per dollar rather than per post.
11 active creators. Cost per engagement spans 9x across the roster.
| Rank | Creator | Tier | Spend | Engagements | Cost / eng |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Creator E | Micro, TikTok | $600 | 14,200 | $0.04 |
| 2 | Creator C | Mid, TikTok | $2,400 | 41,800 | $0.06 |
| 3 | Creator A | Mid, TikTok | $2,200 | 30,100 | $0.07 |
| 4 | Creator B | Mid, IG | $2,000 | 19,400 | $0.10 |
| ... | |||||
| 11 | Creator K | Macro, IG | $6,500 | 18,300 | $0.36 |
The pattern is platform, not tier. TikTok creators occupy six of the top seven slots regardless of size. The one Instagram creator in the top four posts Reels rather than static.
Format: first-person routine content is at $0.05 median cost per engagement. Static product posts sit at $0.22. Same creators, in several cases.
Where the $8,000 goes
| Move | Amount | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Extend Creator E to 3 more posts | $1,800 | Best cost per engagement on the roster, and they have capacity |
| Extend Creator C to 2 more posts | $2,400 | Top of the mid tier, proven format |
| Add 2 new TikTok micros from spillover | $2,400 | Already posting unpaid, cheapest way to buy proven fit |
| Reserve | $1,400 | Unallocated on purpose, see below |
Do not put more into Creator K. The instinct on a macro under-performing is to buy another post to average it out, and it does not work: their cost per engagement has been stable across all three posts, so a fourth costs the same and returns the same.
Two honest limits.
Cost per engagement is only as good as the cost data recorded on each creator. Two of the eleven have no cost recorded, and I have excluded them from the ranking rather than guessing. Add their fees and the ranking may move.
Engagement is not conversion. If revenue attribution is available for this campaign, that ranking may look different, and it should override this one where the two disagree.
Naise created an artifact
Live roster ranked by cost per engagement, with a four-line reallocation and a deliberate reserve.
Top of the roster
| Creator | Spend | Cost / eng |
|---|---|---|
| Creator E, micro TikTok | $600 | $0.04 |
| Creator C, mid TikTok | $2,400 | $0.06 |
| Creator A, mid TikTok | $2,200 | $0.07 |
| Creator K, macro IG | $6,500 | $0.36 |
The plan
Extend E ($1,800) · Extend C ($2,400) · 2 new TikTok micros from spillover ($2,400) · Reserve ($1,400).
Limits: 2 creators have no cost recorded and are excluded. Engagement is not conversion.
That was a sample. Run it on your own brand.
Naise reads your brand, your channels, and your market, then does this against your real data.
Run this playbook free