UGC versus studio creative efficiency claims: what the sample must show
Benchmark-check checklist for UGC vs studio efficiency claims: required sample fields, not an invented lift.
Efficiency claims (“UGC is 30% cheaper CPI”) are meaningless without genre, geo, creative age and cost definition. This article is a methodology gate, not a lift table.
What a sample must show
| Required field | Why it matters | Fail if missing |
|---|---|---|
| Genre / subgenre | Midcore SLG ≠ puzzle | Blended “games” bucket |
| Geo + OS | CPI and creative norms differ | Global blend only |
| Creative age band | Fatigue confounds production type | Mix of day-1 and day-60 ads |
| Cost definition | Production cost vs media CPI vs CPA | “Efficiency” undefined |
| Revenue definition | Gross vs net ROAS | Mixed without label |
| Sample N and date window | Reproducibility | Undated vendor chart |
| Attribution definition | MMP vs network | Unstated |
AppsFlyer activity metrics define ROAS as revenue/cost and separate net metrics — use one consistently. TikTok’s playable performance help lists network UI metrics (impressions, clicks, CTR, CVR, cost per result); those are not a UGC-vs-studio study design.
Illustrative row (not a benchmark)
| Cell | Value | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Claimed UGC CPI advantage | 0.30 | illustrative claim under test |
| Sample meets all required fields? | false | teaching |
| Publishable as Ledger benchmark? | no | until fields complete |
Facts versus limits
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| ROAS formula pointer | AppsFlyer activity metrics |
| Invented UGC lift | Explicitly not published |
Download the checklist CSV.
