Playbook replay
Generate a report
A finished campaign becomes a shareable deck: rankings, the engagement story, and the thing that went wrong.
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.
A deck that is just charts makes the reader do the analysis. It should open with the conclusion and use the charts as evidence, otherwise every stakeholder reaches a different one.
Pulling the campaign's performance data, then deciding what the report is actually arguing before I lay anything out.
The deck, 9 slides
| # | Slide | Content |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Headline | 2.4m reach, 118k engagements, 4.1% ER, 22% over target |
| 2 | The one-line story | TikTok micros carried it, the macro budget did not |
| 3 | Against target | Reach, engagement, ER, cost per engagement, each vs plan |
| 4 | Creator leaderboard | 14 creators ranked by cost per engagement |
| 5 | Tier analysis | Micro vs mid vs macro, the 9x spread |
| 6 | Format analysis | First-person routine at 2.4x, static at 0.7x |
| 7 | Organic spillover | 41 unpaid amplifiers, the unbought half of the result |
| 8 | What went wrong | 1 missing deliverable, 1 late, macro under-delivery |
| 9 | Next campaign | 4 recommendations, each tied to a slide above |
Slide 8 exists on purpose. A wrap deck with no problems slide gets read as marketing, and the one thing stakeholders remember from the quarter is usually the thing that went wrong. Naming it first is how the rest of the numbers stay credible.
The headline slide, as written
The spring campaign delivered 2.4m reach against a 2.0m target, at a blended cost per engagement of $0.11.
It did that despite 43% of budget going to one macro creator who returned 15% of the engagement. The campaign hit target because 6 micro creators on TikTok over-delivered, not because the plan was right.
That second paragraph is the one worth arguing about internally, and it should be on the first slide rather than buried on slide five. The alternative version, "campaign beats target by 22%", is true and teaches nobody anything.
The deck is styled to your brand, exports as a single HTML file, and opens in any browser with no dependencies.
Naise created an artifact
Nine slides, headline conclusion first, including a problems slide and four recommendations.
Headline
2.4m reach against a 2.0m target, blended cost per engagement $0.11.
It hit target because 6 micro creators on TikTok over-delivered, not because the plan was right: 43% of budget went to one macro who returned 15% of the engagement.
Contents
Headline · The one-line story · Against target · Creator leaderboard · Tier analysis · Format analysis · Organic spillover · What went wrong · Next campaign
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