Every once in a while, someone will come to me and say something that makes me cringe.
“We spent $70,000 on Meta ads, YouTube ads, and direct mail... And it didn’t work.”
The problem wasn't that they chose the wrong platform.
The problem wasn't even that the advertising failed.
The real mistake was spending $70,000 to find out.
Claude Hopkins wrote that advertising disasters are caused by rashness.
Needless and inexcusable.
That idea has guided almost everything I've done in advertising.
Because direct response advertising gives us something no other kind of advertising can: an answer.
Did people respond?
How many responded?
How much did each response cost?
Did those people engage after they raised their hands?
And ultimately, did any of them buy?
You don't need to spend $70,000 to begin answering those questions.
You can start with $100.
That's exactly what we did with Air Fried Carnivore, a book we created for a local meat shop here in Winter Haven.
We spent $20 a day for five days.
That little test generated 68 leads at $1.68 each.
Now, imagine if it had generated nothing.
We wouldn't have had a disaster.
We would have spent $100 learning that the title, offer, audience, or ad needed to change.
That's valuable information.
But because it worked, the campaign earned the right to continue.
That's the distinction: A loser earns another experiment. A winner earns more money.
The more successful entrepreneurs become, the more tempting it is to believe they should make bigger, bolder moves.
But boldness isn't a substitute for evidence.
The smartest approach is to limit the downside while you search for the winner…then confidently expand what has already proven itself.
You don't need to gamble on advertising.
You can let the market reveal the answer one small test at a time.
Never spend $70,000 answering a question that $100 could have answered first.
Never spend $70,000 answering a question that $100 could have answered first.