ExactiusATLAS / CASE STUDY
Omaze UK / London campaign comparison

From questions
to evidence.

Four London campaigns. Different seasons. One comparable stage—and a richer answer when performance data meets the context behind it.

Prepared by Atlas · ExactiusSnapshot 17 September 2026Currency GBP
01 / The brief

The questions that
shaped the investigation.

A conversation became an analytical brief: identify the live campaigns, align the comparison, then challenge the numbers with what the team knew at the time.

DARREN’S QUESTIONS → ATLASREAD-ONLY CONVERSATION BRIEF
Q01Find the live campaigns
Q02Make the comparison
Q03Align the stage and season
Q04Challenge the findings with context

Questions lightly edited for spelling and readability; intent preserved. This is a display of the brief, not an interactive chat.

Starting pointThe live calendar identified London VII / H54 as ongoing, closing 27 September 2026, and Yorkshire IV / H55 as scheduled to launch 17 September, closing 25 October. Actual Yorkshire go-live was not verified. The analysis then focused on London VII and the previous three London houses. [1]
02 / The answer in brief

A different story
beneath the blended number.

Completed Monday–Wednesday data is the primary view. The current window is provisional and may restate; the Thursday intraday extension is shown separately.

£35.90 blended CAC+.
£29.57 online CAC+.

London VII has the highest blended cost per first-time or lapsed buyer of the four matched windows. Yet its online CAC+ is slightly lower than January’s £30.26 and April’s £30.40.

September carries a much heavier offline spend share: 28.3%, versus 13.4% in January. That makes mix and offline effectiveness priorities for investigation—not proof that the house or creative is underperforming.

Interpretation, not attribution: spend mix is a plausible contributor. Offline attribution is modelled; this comparison does not prove causality or incremental returns.
September vs January · Mon–Wed

More spend.
Less proportional growth.

January is indexed to 100. September's spend rises much faster than FTBs or Sales. This is the scale-efficiency tension behind the blended result.

Same completed weekdays and house stage. Sales include renewals. An indexed comparison, not a causal model.

03 / The comparable windows

Same campaign stage.
Different operating conditions.

Monday–Wednesday is 13 to 11 days before each house close. The Thursday extension reaches 10 days before close. These are stage-matched—not seasonally adjusted—periods.

Blended diverges. Online stays close.

CAC+ · £ per first-time or lapsed buyer · Mon–Wed

BlendedOnline

Both metrics use spend ÷ (FTB + lapsed), within their respective reporting scopes. Lower acquisition cost does not by itself establish better incremental value.

September’s offline share is different.

Share of total spend · completed Mon–Wed windows

OfflineOther spend

The chart shows spend composition, not the proportion of buyers caused by offline advertising.

Explore scale and return

Spend and Sales

SpendSales

Sales include subscription renewals and all included UK business channels. Sales are not isolated to London-house products.

The acquisition mix also changes.

First-time buyersLapsed buyers

Lapsed share is calculated as lapsed ÷ (FTB + lapsed). These are governed aggregate customer measures.

Revenue composition · Mon–Wed only

Not all Sales reflect
new acquisition.

Renewals are included consistently, but January has a larger renewal share of Sales than the other windows. Keep revenue composition visible when reading ROAS.

Renewal SalesOther Sales

Account-period results, not house-only results

Blended totals retain all included channels, renewals and unattributed buyers. Each Thursday also coincides with the next house’s launch, which can affect the intraday extension. These totals must not be read as performance attributable solely to the London property.

Renewal contribution changes between windows

Renewals are included consistently, but their share of Sales differs. The table shows renewal Sales separately so the revenue mix remains visible. A higher ROAS is not automatically evidence of stronger new-customer acquisition.

04 / What the team knew at the time

Test the story
against the historical record.

External decks and corresponding meetings provide context—not automatically like-for-like validation. Their event, month-to-date and creative-subset metrics are kept distinct from the matched windows.

The evidence is not equally complete.

A map of what was available—not a confidence score. Historical records are not automatically aligned to the exact analytical window.

Period
Live data
External deck
Transcript
July 2024
Matched window15–17 July
Rolling deckMeeting match unconfirmed
18 JulyContemporaneous context
April 2025
Matched window14–16 April
16 AprilMTD / event scope
Not foundAccessible catalog
January 2026
Matched window12–14 January
15 JanuaryEarlier event scope
Not foundAccessible catalog
September 2026
Matched window14–16 September
10 SeptemberEarlier period only
10 SeptemberEarlier period only
Available for stated purposeRelated context / scope caveatEvidence gap

What the team reported

The 18 July external meeting described Facebook as recovering across recent houses and Early Bird events. The discussion linked that recovery to an earlier return to the legacy landing-page journey. This is a contemporaneous interpretation, not a controlled causal result. [4]

What it adds to the comparison

The recovery narrative is consistent with the efficient acquisition in our completed-day window. July was not simply a “summer benchmark”: the landing-page configuration was part of the operating context.

A timing distinction that changes the answer

The PAYG-only Facebook change was scheduled for 29 July. It happened after our 15–17 July window and cannot explain these results.

The rolling July deck contains later close and month-end reporting. Its statement that July was historically a good month is contextual hindsight—not a measured seasonal effect for these three days. No extracted slide was securely attributable to the 18 July meeting. [5]

What the external deck reported

The 16 April section said April-to-date blended CAC was 18% higher, with offline CAC of £53.1 versus online CAC of £39.5. Investment was up 58%, while FTBs were up approximately 34%. The Early Bird commentary described stronger social performance alongside weaker offline performance. [6]

What the live reconstruction supports

A candidate 1–14 April versus 1–14 March reconstruction returns approximately +58% spend, +34% FTBs and +18% plain CAC. That supports the headline direction. The deck labels its window only “MTD”, and its channel figures do not exactly reproduce in the current data, so this is not a full reconciliation.

The same blended-versus-online distinction

April is an example of blended efficiency deteriorating while the online picture differs. But the deck’s £39.5 CAC must not be compared directly with our £30.40 CAC+, which also counts lapsed buyers.

No corresponding external transcript was found in the accessible meeting catalog. The deck is evidence; a reconstructed discussion is not.

What the external deck reported

The 15 January deck described the preceding Early Bird close as efficient at lower scale, without TV investment. It attributed softer order volume to absent TV and CRM underperformance, and described improvements associated with landing-page updates. These are the team’s reported interpretations. [7]

What the live check confirms

The live query confirms zero offline spend on 11 January, the Early Bird’s last day. That supports the event-level investment context. It does not mean there was no offline spend in our separate 12–14 January window: that window contains £9,990.

Another definition to reconcile

The historical slide labels CAC+ using 400-day lapsed buyers. Our harmonised comparison uses the current governed 365-day lapsed definition. The historical headline is not a directly interchangeable benchmark.

January differs in media investment and conversion setup, not just season. No corresponding external transcript was found in the accessible meeting catalog.

What the latest available external reporting said

The 10 September deck and meeting described the preceding Millionaire Maker event as efficient, but lighter in volume. The discussion documented campaign cuts and pauses to manage acquisition costs, and an explicit choice to take efficiency early rather than invest more. Influencer and video creative were described as carrying the house launch. [8] [9]

What it adds—and what it cannot establish

London VII had demonstrated efficient online acquisition in an earlier phase. That is consistent with our distinction between online and blended performance, but the 5–6 September event cannot validate 14–16 September results.

A successful basis check

Excluding renewals from the event query reproduces the deck’s 2,641 FTBs, 2,787 lapsed buyers and approximately £455k Sales. The original four-house comparison deliberately includes renewals. The two Sales and ROAS bases must stay separate.

At the research cutoff, 10 September was the latest available external section. The 17 September meeting was scheduled for later that day. There is no contemporaneous external validation of the current week in this report.

05 / How Atlas built the answer

One question.
Several kinds of evidence.

The value is not simply retrieving more material. It is using each source for the question it can answer, and surfacing where the evidence does not line up.

Context → measurement → challenge → reconciliation

The investigation stayed within Omaze UK. Curated context helped route the work; live analytical sources supplied the figures; historical records explained what was being discussed and changed.

01

Partner context

The UK vault supplied business terminology, source routes, campaign conventions and attribution caveats. It was not treated as a live performance feed.

02

Calendar & contracts

The live event calendar and governed metric definitions established house identifiers, closing dates, buyer definitions and reporting boundaries.

03

Live analytical data

Read-only, date-bounded queries produced the daily comparison. Historical and current hourly sources supported a separately caveated Thursday extension.

04

Decks & meetings

External slide sections and accessible meeting transcripts were checked for media strategy, landing-page changes, event timing and contemporaneous interpretation.

05

Reconciliation

Source windows, CAC versus CAC+, lapsed thresholds and renewal inclusion were compared before combining the evidence into a conclusion.

What this report establishes

  • The matched completed-day figures show higher blended CAC+ in September, but broadly comparable online CAC+.
  • Offline spend share and customer mix differ between the periods.
  • Historical reporting documents distinct media strategies, conversion journeys and efficiency-versus-volume decisions.
  • A renewal-excluded September event cut reproduces the deck’s buyer counts and rounded Sales figure.

What it does not establish

  • A causal seasonal penalty in September or advantage in January.
  • How much of the blended gap is caused by spend mix, versus changes within channels.
  • Incremental TV returns or the intrinsic quality of the house or its creative.
  • Exact local-clock comparability for the Thursday extension, or current-week validation from an external meeting that had not yet occurred.
Reproduced on an aligned basis

September MM · 5–6 September

2,641FTBs2,787Lapsed buyers£455kSales, rounded

Removing renewals reproduces these deck figures. The main campaign-window comparison still includes renewals. This reconciliation does not substitute one reporting basis for the other.

Direction supported · not fully reconciled

April month-to-date reconstruction

+58%Spend+34%FTBs+18%Plain CAC

The 1–14 April versus 1–14 March candidate reconstruction supports the deck’s headline direction. Exact MTD boundaries are unstated, and channel figures differ from the present-day data.

06 / Decision-ready conclusion

Keep the finding.
Be precise about the explanation.

Season is context. It is not a causal answer on its own.

Investigate the heavier offline investment and changing customer mix before judging the house or cutting online activity.

London VII is less efficient on a blended basis at the matched stage, while online CAC+ remains comparable with previous London campaigns. The external record documents materially different TV investment, landing-page configurations and appetite for scale.

Those are stronger, documented factors to investigate than assigning the gap to the property or the time of year. The evidence supports a focused diagnostic—not a blanket verdict.

07 / Evidence & definitions

Traceable findings.
Visible limitations.

The page is public. Linked source systems retain their own access controls. No raw meeting transcripts, vault exports or credentials are included in this publication.

[1] LIVE PLANNING CALENDAR

Omaze UK Events Calendar ↗

Checked 17 September 2026. Campaign schedule and close-date context; scheduled launch is not proof of go-live.

[2] GOVERNED ANALYTICAL QUERIES

UK daily performance and historical/current hourly reporting

Read-only results collected 17 September 2026. The charts reproduce the saved comparison snapshot, not a new query at page load. Completed-day totals were checked against an independent aggregation.

[3] CURATED PARTNER CONTEXT

Omaze UK context vault and analytical definitions

Used for source routing, business terms, metric boundaries and model caveats. Actuals come from the governed analytical sources, not narrative notes. Internal source material is not republished.

[4] EXTERNAL WEEKLY MEETING · 18 JULY 2024

Omaze & Exactius Insights meeting ↗

Contemporaneous discussion of Facebook recovery and the planned 29 July journey change; not an exact recap of our three-day KPI window.

[5] JULY 2024 EXTERNAL DECK

Rolling July reporting ↗

Includes later close and month-end reporting. Exact slide-to-18-July-meeting correspondence was not established; retrospective context only.

[6] EXTERNAL DECK · 16 APRIL 2025 SECTION

April MTD performance ↗

Month-to-date and Early Bird context; predominantly plain CAC. Matching external transcript not found in the accessible catalog.

[7] EXTERNAL DECK · 15 JANUARY 2026 SECTION

January Early Bird comparison ↗

Prior event / last-day comparison. Historical CAC+ slide uses a 400-day lapsed definition. Matching external transcript not found in the accessible catalog.

[8] EXTERNAL DECK · 10 SEPTEMBER 2026 SECTION

September MM and launch reporting ↗

Latest available section at research cutoff. Earlier-event context, not a report on 14–16 September.

[9] EXTERNAL WEEKLY MEETING · 10 SEPTEMBER 2026

Omaze–Exactius UK Weekly Meeting ↗

Efficiency versus volume, campaign optimisation and creative context. Summarised interpretations, not raw transcript excerpts.

Metric definitions and reporting boundaries
CAC
Spend divided by first-time buyers, using the governed UK reporting measure. Do not equate it with CAC+.
CAC+
Spend divided by first-time plus lapsed buyers. The harmonised comparison uses the current governed 365-day lapsed definition; some historical slides use a different threshold.
Sales & ROAS
Sales are the governed GBP Sales measure. ROAS = Sales ÷ spend. Subscription renewals are included in the primary four-period comparison.
Blended / Online
Blended covers the included UK account-period business. Online uses the governed online platform classification. Offline allocations are modelled; neither attribution nor spend mix establishes incrementality.
Completed days
15–17 July 2024; 14–16 April 2025; 12–14 January 2026; 14–16 September 2026. Current-period data may restate.
Thursday extension
Completed daily totals plus Thursday source-hour buckets 00:00–08:00 inclusive; the newest 09:00 bucket was excluded. Historical GMT/BST normalisation was not independently verified. Directional, not an exact matched local-clock comparison.
Seasonality
Time of year is identified, not statistically controlled. The evidence does not isolate seasonal effects from spend, offers, landing pages, buyer mix or other operating changes.
Evidence status
“Reported” means stated in a deck or meeting. “Reproduced” means checked against a matched data cut as specified. Contextual agreement does not amount to a causal finding.