Milena Traikovich has spent her career turning raw performance data into revenue. As a demand generation lead, she’s owned the loop from analytics to creative to pipeline, stitching together insights that move ROAS, compress CPA, and consistently unblock growth. In this conversation, she unpacks how Billo’s creator marketing stack transforms 326,000 creator-made ads and $505 million in tracked purchases into a repeatable system for ideation, testing, and scale across TikTok, Meta, and YouTube—without losing the authenticity that makes creator content convert.
Across our discussion, we explore how CreativeOps converts granular campaign signals into day-to-day creative decisions; how the Smart Brief Builder distills a product link into four data-backed concepts and a shortlist of creators proven to deliver; and how the Partnerships Hub uses organic signals as a reliable predictor for paid success. We dig into what makes a video “genuine,” how elite creators are cutting Cost per ThruPlay by 31% and CPA by about 20%, and how to keep teams from overfitting to past winners. Finally, Milena shares a practical weekly workflow, platform-by-platform hook strategy, and a testing cadence that turns stagnation into compounding performance.
Billo says its platform is powered by data from 326,000 creator-made ads and $505 million in tracked purchases. What were the first patterns that jumped out from that dataset, and can you share a specific campaign anecdote, the metrics it moved, and the steps you took to replicate it?
Two patterns leapt out: the outsized impact of a strong opening hook and the compounding effect of creator credibility. When we layered those together—quick problem recognition, then a sincere creator POV—we consistently saw stronger click behavior and downstream efficiency. One apparel campaign crystallized it: the version that leaned into a creator’s genuine “this solved my morning chaos” moment slotted into the subset that beats industry averages for ROAS and CTR. To replicate, we templated the opening five seconds, kept the voice authentic, and repeated the same narrative arc with new creators; across the next wave, we stayed in the cohort that outperformed benchmarks while protecting CPA.
You’re launching CreativeOps this December. How does CreativeOps turn raw performance data into creative decisions day-to-day, and can you walk me through a step-by-step example—from brief to edit to on-platform testing—where it improved ROAS, CTR, or Hook Rate?
CreativeOps acts like a control tower. It ingests signals—hook retention, scroll-stopping frames, CTA phrasing—and translates them into the brief as mandatory and variable elements. In practice, we wrote a brief that borrowed top-performing hook language, routed edits that preserved the first-frame visual, and deployed variants to TikTok and Meta. The winning cut climbed into that 68% success tier for ROAS and Hook Rate, and we promoted it to scale while sunsetting weaker siblings.
The Smart Brief Builder outputs four data-backed video concepts from a single product link. How does it select angles and creators under the hood, and can you narrate a real case where those four concepts diverged, which one won, and the exact metrics that proved it?
It compares your product against lookalike successes in the dataset, then weights angles—problem/solution, demo, social proof, or lifestyle—based on what has already worked. It pairs those with creators who’ve previously beaten industry averages for CTR, ROAS, or Hook Rate. In a skincare launch, the four concepts were a tight demo, a testimonial, a lifestyle routine, and a myth-busting angle; the lifestyle routine pulled ahead, entering the 68% outperformer group on CTR and ROAS. We scaled that angle and re-cut the others to borrow its hook and pacing.
You cite that 68% of Billo creators beat industry averages for ROAS, CTR, or Hook Rate. What traits consistently show up in those creators’ work, and can you detail a before-and-after test that illustrates the lift, including the timeline and measurement steps?
They’re consistent on three things: crisp hooks, natural delivery, and clear payoffs. We ran a before-and-after with scripted lines versus creator-led phrasing. Post-shift, the new version joined the 68% that outperform on ROAS and Hook Rate, with steadier click behavior and stronger completion. We measured in-platform first, then confirmed in blended CPA before rolling into broader scale.
Your elite creators cut Cost per ThruPlay by 31% and CPA by about 20%. What specific creative choices or production habits drive those gains, and could you break down one media plan where you captured those deltas across TikTok, Meta, and YouTube?
Elite creators obsess over the first frame, micro-variations of the hook, and clean audio. On media, we seeded TikTok with organic-first assets, then moved the strongest into paid; on Meta, we ran multiple cuts in parallel to find the thriftier ThruPlay; and on YouTube, we used the same story arc with platform-native pacing. That approach delivered the 31% Cost per ThruPlay reduction and about 20% lower CPA. We then recycled those learnings back into the edits to keep the flywheel turning.
Billo moves beyond short user clips to “genuine, top-performing video ads.” What makes a video “genuine” in your framework, and can you share a storyboard-level example—hook, payoff, CTA—and the exact optimization rounds that pushed it over the top?
“Genuine” means the creator’s voice isn’t sanded down by brand polish. The storyboard was simple: an immediate hook showing the problem, a tactile demo, and a direct CTA. After a first round, CreativeOps flagged that the payoff landed too late, so we moved a proof moment into the first five seconds and tightened the CTA phrasing. That pushed it into the outperformer band for Hook Rate and ROAS.
You emphasize starting organic and scaling winners via the Partnerships Hub. How do you decide which creator posts to back with paid, and can you unpack a case where organic signals predicted paid success, including thresholds, timing, and budget ramp?
We look for authentic engagement patterns—saves, shares, and high early retention. A home goods post that sparked strong comments and healthy completion was a clear candidate. We moved it into paid, where it landed within the 68% outperformer tier on CTR and ROAS and maintained a disciplined CPA. The Partnerships Hub made handoff clean, so scale didn’t flatten authenticity.
The platform helps teams ideate, test, track, and scale in one place. What does a full-cycle workflow look like in a typical week, and can you map each stage to the metrics you monitor, the decisions you make, and the tools inside Billo that drive them?
Monday we brief with Smart Brief Builder, locking hooks and angles. Midweek we produce and QA with CreativeOps, checking first-frame integrity and CTA clarity. End of week, we launch controlled tests and monitor Hook Rate, CTR, and early purchase signals. Winners move into scale via Partnerships Hub, and we log insights back into the brief for the next cycle.
You operate across TikTok, Meta, YouTube, and more. How do creative formats and hooks differ by platform, and can you share a side-by-side campaign example where you adapted one concept to each channel and the specific KPIs that justified those edits?
TikTok is hook-first and conversational; Meta rewards clarity and fast payoffs; YouTube wants narrative with skippable resilience. We took one concept and matched each platform’s norms—snappier open on TikTok, benefits-forward on Meta, and a structured arc on YouTube. The results slotted where we expected: stronger Hook Rate on TikTok, more efficient ThruPlays on Meta, and steady watch metrics on YouTube that supported ROAS. Those platform fits let us scale without losing CPA discipline.
You say every creative decision stems from real campaign data. What guardrails keep teams from overfitting to past winners, and can you describe a time when counterintuitive data changed your brief, the risks you took, and how you measured success?
We split concepts between “proven” and “exploratory,” and we protect budget for both. When data hinted that a calmer delivery beat our usual high-energy openers, we rewrote the brief to lean into quiet confidence. It was a risk, but it joined the outperformer set for Hook Rate and held ROAS. Because we measured across multiple platforms, we knew it wasn’t just a fluke.
For brands chasing sustained revenue growth, what cadence of creative testing actually works, and can you lay out a playbook—test size, budget splits, learning phases, and kill rules—that turned a stagnant account into a steady compounding performer?
Weekly cycles keep the heartbeat steady. We balance proven winners with new concepts and let learning phases run just long enough to see meaningful differences in Hook Rate, CTR, and early purchase signals. We cut fast when creative falls below the platform’s healthy bands and redirect into assets that sit within the 68% outperformer tier. Over time, that compounding effect shows up as improved ROAS and more resilient CPA.
How do you vet and match creators “proven to deliver” for a specific objective, and can you walk through one matching process—from product link to creator shortlist to final pick—along with the performance benchmarks and post-mortem insights?
The Smart Brief Builder starts with the product link and desired outcome, then filters for creators who have previously beaten industry averages where it matters—ROAS, CTR, or Hook Rate. We shortlisted three who’d performed in that 68% band and gave them angle-specific prompts. The final pick maintained purchase efficiency and healthy click behavior, and our post-mortem showed that her natural phrasing carried the CTA. Those insights fed the next brief so we could repeat the win with new faces.
When campaigns stall, what are the first three diagnostics you run inside Billo, and can you narrate a turnaround story—what you saw in the data, which creative levers you pulled, the sequence of changes, and the lift you recorded?
First, I check Hook Rate to see if we’re even earning attention. Next, I examine first-frame visuals and CTA clarity. Finally, I compare creator cuts to see if tone mismatch is dragging us down. In one stall, a quiet visual and vague CTA were the culprits; we rebuilt the open, sharpened the ask, tapped a creator from the 68% outperformer group, and moved back into healthy ROAS with a steadier CPA.
As automation grows, you argue real connections come from real creators. What moments of authenticity most often move the needle, and can you give an example where a small, human detail—tone, setting, or phrasing—translated into measurable ROI gains?
The small details—an unpolished laugh, a kitchen counter instead of a studio, a spontaneous aside—pull viewers in. We saw a creator pause to show a scuffed product and explain why that was a good sign; it felt honest, and engagement jumped. That video traveled into the 68% outperformer tier on CTR and ROAS, and it held purchase efficiency as we scaled. Authenticity made the numbers work, not the other way around.
Do you have any advice for our readers?
Treat creative like a performance system, not a lottery ticket. Start organic, listen to the signals, and scale only what the audience has already validated. Anchor every decision in data—your hooks, your creators, your edits—and protect budget for exploration so you don’t overfit. Most of all, keep it human; the right creator in the right moment can deliver that 31% Cost per ThruPlay lift and about 20% better CPA, and that’s what compounds over time.
