Sponty / Campaign Wrap / Credit Union

Regional Credit Union, Q4 Membership Campaign

A multi-activation creator campaign across October, November and December. Every figure below is measured delivery, reported against the goal it was set. Creator identities are withheld.

MarketTop-20 US metro
Institution$7.2B assets, 330K members
Roster16 creators
ChannelInstagram Reels and Stories
Relationship3 years, rebooking a 4th

What every metric on this page means →

At a glance

Audience

Each metric was given a goal before the roster was built. The bar shows delivery against that goal.

Total audience 326,701 Goal 250,000 +30.7%
Accounts activated 16 Minimum 10 +60.0%
In-market audience 34.38% Goal 20% +71.9%
Audience authenticity 82.81% Goal 75% +10.4%
On-target age 76.04% Goal 60% +26.7%

In-market audience is the share the data can place inside the market. The true local share runs higher, because a follower is only placed in a city when their account gives the platform enough signal to do it. The reported number is deliberately conservative.

At a glance

Performance

Delivered views is the headline metric. It counts content actually watched, not audience that could have seen it.

505,113Delivered views
14,853Engagements
2.94%Engagement rate
55Reels published
115Stories published

Where the engagement came from

Share of 14,853 engagements

Content delivered against contract

Pieces of content
Commissioned Delivered

97 pieces commissioned, 170 delivered. Stories came in at 274% of contract. No additional cost.

At a glance

Value

Paid social value is what the same delivery would have cost through Meta and TikTok ads, priced against current benchmarks.

Paid social value returned 2.4x 160% of goal

The goal was set at 1.5x the campaign investment before the campaign began. This campaign returned 2.4x, which is 160% of the goal it was given.

Reading this number

Full glossary

Paid social value answers one question: if you had bought this exact result through Meta and TikTok ads instead, what would the invoice have been? It is reported as a multiple of the investment so it stays comparable across campaigns of any size.

The formula is repriced every quarter against live ad rates, so these figures are never compared across years without naming which model each one used.

Views can exceed total audience, because content travels past a creator's own followers. That is the mechanism this channel is bought for.

Roster

Return by creator

Paid social value produced against what each creator cost. Identities withheld, ordered by return.

Creator return on investment

Every creator on the roster cleared 250%

The spread is the argument for the method. The top performer returned four times what the lowest did, and follower count did not predict the order. Audience composition did.

Standouts

Who did what

Categories are the creator's content vertical. Names are withheld in this version.

Return leaders

Highest value-to-investment ratio

  1. Creator 011,020%
  2. Creator 02781%
  3. Creator 03731%

Above and beyond

Overdelivered on content, no extra cost

  1. Food creator+11 stories
  2. Family creator+10 stories
  3. Lifestyle creator+9 stories

Engagement leaders

Highest engagement rate

  1. Culture creator8.92%
  2. Lifestyle creator7.70%
  3. Culture creator6.50%

Reach leaders

Most views generated

  1. Lifestyle creator168,934
  2. Lifestyle creator108,328
  3. Food creator53,221