OnCourse AI · iOS · Meta Ads · USMLE

Did the ad
actually work?

An honest 8-day read on the Meta ad. The ad only began spending Jun 5 — so any "LTV per Instagram customer" measured since April is mostly your organic creator audience, not the paid spend. This version measures the one thing the data actually supports: the incremental lift the ad drove.

Paid window Jun 5 – Jun 12 · ~8 days Spend ~₹20.3k ≈ $212 Sources Meta Ads · RevenueCat · Mixpanel Generated Jun 12, 2026
Ad spend · 8 days
$212₹20.3k
IG trial lift vs baseline
Incremental trials
~0
Early net ROAS
01

Your napkin model

You estimated revenue per install bottom-up: trial-start rate × trial→paid × net-of-Apple × price. The arithmetic is correct — but it rests on three assumptions we can now check against reality.

12%
trial start rate
×
30%
trial → paid
×
0.85
net of Apple
×
$89
price
=
$2.72
rev / install
Arithmetic verified · $2.72 vs $1.40 cost = 1.94× (gross, modeled) 2 of 4 inputs were guesses

Assumption · trial → paid

30%
Your guess.

Measured · US trial → paid

42.6%
RevenueCat, mature May cohort (26 of 61 trials converted, net of refunds). Your model was conservative.
02

Did it move the needle?

The cleanest thing the data can prove: incrementality. For weeks before the ad, Instagram trials trickled in at ~1–2 a day from the creator's organic following. The moment paid spend started on Jun 5, that rate climbed — to 5, then 8, then 15 trials in a single day as budget scaled. Organic doesn't jump like that. The ad is doing something real.

How to read this → each bar is one day's new Instagram trials (Mixpanel, all geos). The amber line marks the day paid spend began. Flat before, climbing after — that gap is the ad's incremental lift, not organic.

03

Cash in vs cash out — so far

It's too early for true LTV: these customers are 8 days old and most are still inside their free trial. But we can already weigh what the ad cost against what's actually been collected from the customers it drove — and even this incomplete snapshot is past break-even.

$212
ad spend
Jun 5–12 · both campaigns
drove →
30
new US·IG customers
~32 incremental trials
who paid →
$270.88
gross collected
8 days · incomplete
Only 8 days old.  Most of those 30 customers are still inside their free trial. The $270.88 is early converters plus a few annual buyers — it grows as the rest convert over the next 2–3 weeks.
Gross collected$270.88
× 0.85 Apple
Net collected$230
÷ $212 spend
Net ROAS · so far1.1×

Read this as a payback clock, not a verdict. At day 8 the ad has already returned ~$1.10 net for every $1 spent — before the bulk of trials convert. Annual conversions ($89) and renewals land over the coming weeks, so the mature figure is realistically 2–4×. Honest headline today: break-even and rising.

04

Why the first read was too rosy

The earlier version scoped “Instagram” to installs since Apr 20 and reported $13.07/customer and a 7.9× return. But the ad ran none of those first 7 weeks — that cohort is overwhelmingly your creator's organic following, acquired at $0. Narrow it to the real paid window and roughly half the customers disappear:

“Apr 20+” — what we first showed

$13.07
54 US·IG customers — but the ad ran 0 of Apr 20 → Jun 4. ~24 are pre-ad organic. The 7.9× divided blended revenue by paid-only cost. Flattering.

Jun 5+ — the actual ad window

$9.03
30 US·IG customers, 8 days old & still converting. Lower per head, but it's the honest paid cohort — and a floor, not a ceiling.

The right way to credit the ad isn't “who typed Instagram” — it's the lift in §02 (organic was flat; the ad period jumped) plus cash-collected-vs-spent in §03. Per-customer LTV only becomes trustworthy once this Jun-5 cohort finishes its trials.

05

So — does it pay back?

At 8 days this is a payback clock, not a final score. Net revenue collected already edges past break-even — and it only climbs as trials convert and annual plans bill over the next 2–3 weeks.

Now · day 8 (net ROAS)
1.1×
Projected mature (net)
2–4×
Break-even floor
1.0×

Net ROAS  =  (gross collected × 0.85) ÷ ad spend  =  ($270.88 × 0.85) ÷ $212 = 1.1× at day 8 — already positive before most trials convert. The 2–4× projection assumes the Jun-5 cohort converts at the 42.6% trial→paid rate measured on mature cohorts.

06

Every number, sourced

MetricValueSourceConfidence
Ad first spend dateJun 5, 2026Meta Adsmeasured
Ad spend · Jun 5–12 (8d)~$212 · ₹20.3kMeta Adsmeasured
IG trials/day — before ad~1.4Mixpanel · May 19–Jun 4measured
IG trials/day — during ad~5.4 · peak 15Mixpanel · Jun 5–12measured
IG trial lift (incrementality)~4× ↑deriveddirectional
Incremental trials (window)~32deriveddirectional
US·IG customers · Jun 5+30RevenueCatmeasured
US·IG revenue so far · Jun 5+$270.88RevenueCat · grossincomplete
US·IG ARPU so far · Jun 5+$9.03RevenueCat · 8d youngclimbing
Net ROAS · day 8~1.1×derivedincomplete
US trial → paid (mature)42.6%RevenueCat · May cohortmature
Net of Apple commission85%Small Business Programconfirmed
“Apr 20+ Instagram ARPU”$13.07 · 7.9×superseded — mostly organicdiscarded
07

Read the fine print

The cohort is 8 days old

The ad started Jun 5. iOS trials convert after a 3–7 day trial, so most of these 30 customers haven't converted yet. Every per-customer and ROAS figure here is a floor that rises — wait ~2–3 weeks for a real read.

Lift, not attribution

“Who typed Instagram” mixes organic + paid. The defensible claim is the incrementality in §02 — organic was flat ~1.4/day for weeks, then jumped with spend. That gap is the ad's true contribution.

Small samples

30 customers, ~32 incremental trials, $212 spend. One annual buyer ($89) or one refund swings these meaningfully. Directional, not precise — confirm as volume builds.

iOS attribution is broken

Meta's dashboard shows 0 attributed trials — SKAN + ATT, not a bug. RevenueCat & Mixpanel are the real scoreboard; the cleanest paid read is AppsFlyer's Facebook-attributed cohort (next step).