Who is this actually for?

Mostly direct-to-consumer brands selling a physical product online — skincare, supplements, apparel, home, pet, beverage, fitness. That’s what the pipeline is built around: we work from your reviews, your product photography, and your TikTok, Reels and paid results. We do take work outside it — there’s software work in the grid above — but if you’re B2B, an app, a service, or a local business, say so at intake and we’ll tell you honestly whether we’re the right shop before you pay anything.

Is this organic content or paid ads?

Both, and that’s the point of buying it in one place. The same angle gets cut for your feed and for your ad account, and what wins in one tells us what to make for the other. Most brands run these as two disconnected workstreams and pay twice for the privilege.

Who owns the content?

You do, outright, the day it lands. Full commercial rights on every platform, forever, with no expiry, no renewal fee, and nothing to re-license. Worth being precise about, because a creator deal is a licence, not a sale — those rights typically run out after 6 or 12 months, and extending them costs you again. Ours don’t run out, and nothing you have bought can be taken back.

Why so few videos? Everyone else offers more.

Because more stopped being the hard part. A hundred videos a month from a pipeline that isn’t reading your results is a hundred videos you have to sort through yourself. We’d rather send twelve we can defend and tell you which four to put money behind.

How fast is the first batch?

We start the day your brief lands — there is no queue and no kickoff call to schedule. Three business days for the $50 batch, five for Test and Growth, ten for Partner.

What if I hate the first batch?

It cost you $50, so not much is at stake. On any package: email us within 30 days and we refund it in full, and you keep the files either way.

Can you match my brand guidelines?

Yes. Send them at intake. Fonts, colors, tone, claims you can’t make, words you can’t say.

Do you post it for us?

We hand you a calendar and files scheduled against it, and we’ll load them into your scheduler if you give us access. We don’t take over your accounts and we don’t manage your ad spend — your buyer or your in-house team keeps that. If you want someone to run the media too, say so and we’ll tell you honestly whether we’re it.

With AI. The actors are AI characters and the footage isn’t filmed — that’s how the price sits under one creator’s day rate. It isn’t what you’re buying: you’re buying the angles, the formats, the cadence, and a human who decides what dies this week. We label AI content per Meta and TikTok’s requirements and we don’t produce fake testimonials or put words in the mouth of anyone claiming to be a real customer. That line isn’t negotiable.

Some AI video does, and most of the cheap stuff does. We spend most of our production effort on the things that give it away — the speech cadence above all, then hands, faces, text on screen, the grade. Watch the work above and decide for yourself. That grid is the honest answer to this question.

Why not just buy Arcads or Creatify and do this myself?

You should, if you have someone in-house who will decide the angles, write the scripts from your reviews, sit through the renders, cut the tells, and read the results every week to decide what dies. The tool is about $110 a month and we’re not going to pretend otherwise. You’re paying us for the person and the plan, not the model.

Meta generates video for free inside Ads Manager. Why pay you anything?

Because free generation gets you variations of what you already have, and it has no opinion about what to make next. It’s a good reason not to pay anyone for raw volume — which is exactly why we don’t sell it.

Can you promise me a viral hit?

No, and anyone who does is lying to you. Nobody can name the video that pops. What you can do is aim well and take enough shots — angles pulled from what your buyers actually say, formats that already work in your category, and a cadence that gives the algorithm something to chew on. Then read what travelled and make more of it. That’s the whole method, and it’s the closest honest thing to a strategy for going viral.

Do I need to send product samples?

No. We work from your product photography and website. Nothing ships anywhere.

What if my product is regulated?

Tell us at intake. We work in supplements, skincare, and finance, and we’ll write to your compliance constraints. We won’t make claims your legal team hasn’t cleared — and in a few of those categories we’ll tell you to hire a real creator instead.

Do I have to commit to anything?

No. Every package is a one-off — you buy a batch, we deliver it, and that is the end of it unless you buy another. No subscription, no notice period, no card kept on file, nothing to cancel.

Notes

Do AI UGC Ads Actually Convert? What a 6-Week Head-to-Head Test Showed

Published 21 August 2026

The honest answer is: close on attention, behind on conversion, and far ahead on cost per test. Anyone giving you a cleaner answer than that is selling something.

The test worth reading

A creator ran a six-week head-to-head across three brands, AI-generated UGC against human UGC, and published the numbers: click-through of 1.4% for AI against 1.7% for human, and conversion of 2.1% against 3.4% (r/UGCcreators).

That is not a result in AI's favour and we're not going to present it as one. Human creators won both metrics, and the conversion gap — roughly a third — is large enough to matter commercially.

What the number doesn't account for

Three things, all of which change the decision without changing the number:

Cost per test. If AI creative converts at two-thirds the rate but costs a fifth as much per variant, the economics of *finding* a winner invert even though the economics of running one don't.
Sample and selection. Three brands over six weeks is a real test and a small one. Which creators, which categories and which angles were used will move a result like this more than the AI-versus-human variable does.
Production quality is not a constant. "AI UGC" spans output that took ten minutes and output that took two days of cadence work. Averaging those tells you about the category's median, not about its ceiling.

Larger-scale analysis muddies the picture further: aggregate studies across hundreds of millions of impressions have found the gap narrowing to near-parity once creative quality and category are controlled for (reelflood). Read that as a ceiling, not a promise.

The reading we'd actually defend

AI-generated creative is competitive on attention and behind on trust. That maps exactly onto where the two formats differ: a hook doesn't require you to believe in a person, and a conversion often does.

Which suggests using each for what it's good at rather than picking a winner. AI creative to find the angle, cheaply and quickly, across more variants than you could otherwise afford. Human creators for the piece that has to carry credibility once you know which angle deserves the budget.

What this means for how you buy

It argues against buying volume from either. A hundred AI videos converting at 2.1% is not a strategy; neither is one expensive creator video on an untested angle. The useful purchase is a small number of genuinely different angles, tested properly, followed by real investment in whichever one earned it.

More detail on the metric-by-metric comparison is in AI UGC vs real UGC on hook rate, CTR and CVR. What we charge to run that test is on the pricing page.