Updated October 2026 · Data from 34 accounts and $10.2M in Meta spend
The Short Answer: Facebook Ad Creative That's Working Now
Every month we look at the top-spending ads across the Meta accounts we have visibility into as a creative agency. We're looking for what works across brands, not inside any one of them. In October 2026 that was 34 accounts and $10.2 million in Meta spend.
Four patterns showed up in at least three unrelated accounts:
- Show the hidden cost of the old way. The strongest angles put what the customer's current option is costing them on screen before showing the product.
- Proof statics punch above their spend. Statics took 38% of top-ad spend but ran a median 10% below their account's cost per result.
- Trusted faces work best inside a daily routine. Creators, experts and famous faces did best when they used the product in a habit the viewer already has.
- The next winner is last month's idea, re-cut. When winners faded, the replacements that worked were new versions of the same idea.
And one warning that hasn't changed: CTR is not the scoreboard.
How We Looked at It
For each account, we pulled the top ads by spend for September 28 to October 27, 2026, and compared each ad with its own account's average. A $10 cost per purchase in supplements and a $690 cost per purchase in software can't be compared directly, but "30% cheaper than this account's average" can.
We only call something a pattern when at least three unrelated accounts agree. Brand names are anonymized, and every number below is an aggregate. Part of our Meta Ads Statistics report.
1. Show the Hidden Cost of the Old Way
Naming the enemy, the product the customer uses now, has worked for a while. This month, the best ads went a step further and showed what that enemy costs.
That meant a pile of plastic meal trays from a month of delivery, a detergent jug that's mostly water, the "secret" pan someone keeps just for eggs, the fees buried in a financing offer, or the monthly price of the TV package the viewer already pays for. In each case, the viewer sees the cost of their current choice before they see the product.
This angle won in six accounts across meal delivery, laundry, cookware, streaming, telecom and finance, with the best examples running 30% to 39% below their account's cost per result.
Why it works: it gives people a reason to switch, not just a reason to look. It also does the qualifying for you. People who don't use the old option scroll past, and the people who click already know why they're there. That matters, because in our data most of the difference in cost per purchase comes after the click. See what actually predicts cost per purchase.
How to use it: show the cost as an object or a number, not a claim. A trash can full of trays beats the word "sustainable."
2. Proof Statics Punch Above Their Spend
Across the top 10 ads in 23 accounts:
| Share of top-ad spend | Cost per result vs. account (median) | |
|---|---|---|
| Statics | 38% | 10% below |
| Video | 62% | 4% above |
In 12 of those 23 accounts, the cheapest ad with meaningful spend was a static.
The statics that won had one thing in common: they proved a single claim at a glance. Some used a third-party certification or score. Some used a short checklist. Some used one hard number, like how many families already use the product. Price comparison tables, which have held up for three months, are still in this group.
Why it works: a static can't rely on a hook or a story, so the good ones get straight to proof. And statics are often cheaper to show. In our static vs. video data, statics ran about 15% lower CPMs than video.
How to use it: one claim per image, readable at thumb size. More on making them in our guide to static ads.
3. Trusted Faces Work Best Inside a Daily Routine
Creators, experts and famous faces still drove some of the most efficient video in October. The best ones weren't just talking to camera. They were using the product inside something the viewer already does every day: the first coffee of the morning, filling the dog's bowl, the end of a school day.
The best of these ran 35% to 48% below their account's cost per result.
Fame alone didn't do it. In one account, a famous face built around a hosting story rather than the product earned a very high click-through rate and almost no sales. When the talent is the story and the product is a prop, people watch the person, not the product.
Why it works: a routine makes the product feel like a habit instead of a purchase, and it shows exactly where it fits in the viewer's day.
4. The Next Winner Is Last Month's Idea, Re-Cut
Several of September's winners lost most of their budget in October, right on the schedule we see in our creative fatigue data. What replaced them is the interesting part.
In four accounts, the new winner wasn't a new idea. It was the same angle in new packaging: a new creator, a new opening line or a new setting. Those replacements came in 33% to 50% below their account's cost per result.
Two other things stood out:
- Fading winners kept their hook rate. In the winners we tracked, hook rate barely moved while cost per purchase drifted up. If you watch hook rate for signs of fatigue, you'll see it too late.
- Statics last longer. The ads still holding after several months were mostly statics and simple letter-style ads.
Why it works: the angle is what Meta's system has learned to match with buyers. A new execution of a proven angle reaches new people without starting from zero. See creative diversity on Meta for why genuinely different versions matter.
The Warning: CTR Is Not the Scoreboard
In five accounts this month, one of the highest-CTR ads was also one of the more expensive ones per result. Curiosity hooks, like a celebrity story, an unboxing or a nostalgic moment, earn clicks from people who were never going to buy.
The retention data says the same thing. Across 226 top ads in 23 accounts:
- Conversion rate after the click explained nearly all of the difference in cost per result between ads in the same account. CTR pushed slightly the other way.
- Ads with higher CTRs tended to convert worse (a correlation of −0.24).
- Videos with the highest hook rates earned 26% more clicks than their account average, but converted 8% worse. Their cost per result was no better.
- The ads that beat their account's cost by 20% or more converted 52% better than their account, with a CTR 9% below it.
So rank ads on cost per purchase or lead, and use CTR and hook rate to diagnose the opening. More in our Facebook ads CTR benchmarks.
What This Means for Your Ads
- Lead with what the old way costs. Then show the way out.
- Keep proof statics live. One clear claim each.
- Put trusted faces inside a routine, with the product doing something, not sitting in the background.
- When a winner fades, re-cut the idea. Don't wait for the drop, and don't start from scratch.
- Judge on cost per result, not clicks or hook rate.
Get Ads Built on What's Working
We run this review every month across the accounts we work in, and our clients get the full version for their own accounts, with the specific angles and next steps. Biddyco is a creative agency for Meta ads for brands spending $100K to $5M+ a month. Our US-based senior team makes UGC, motion, hybrid and static ads, judged on cost per purchase. Book an intro call to talk through your account.
FAQ
What creative is working on Meta ads right now?
In October 2026, across 34 accounts and $10.2M in monthly spend, four patterns stood out: showing the hidden cost of the customer's current option, proof-led statics, trusted faces using the product inside a daily routine, and re-cutting past winners into new versions.
Are static ads still working on Meta?
Yes. Among the top 10 ads in 23 accounts, statics took 38% of spend and ran a median 10% below their account's cost per result. In 12 of 23 accounts, the cheapest ad with meaningful spend was a static.
Do celebrity and influencer ads work on Meta?
They can. The best ones in our data ran 35% to 48% below their account's cost per result, but only when the talent was using the product inside an everyday routine. When the person was the story and the product was a prop, clicks went up and sales didn't.
What should I do when a winning Meta ad starts to fade?
Make a new version of the same idea: a new creator, opening line or setting on the same angle. In four accounts this month, those replacements came in 33% to 50% below their account's cost per result.
Is CTR a good way to pick winning Meta ads?
No. In our data, conversion rate after the click explained nearly all of the difference in cost per result between ads in the same account, and higher-CTR ads tended to convert worse. Use CTR to diagnose, and cost per purchase or lead to decide.
Where does this data come from?
Ad-level data from the Meta accounts we have visibility into as a creative agency, from September 28 to October 27, 2026: 34 accounts with $10.2M in spend, comparing each top ad with its own account's average. Brand names are anonymized, and patterns are only called where at least three unrelated accounts agree.
