Measuring the return on UGC is already hard in any country. In Argentina there is an extra problem: when prices move, comparing one month against another stops meaning anything.

The three numbers that survive

  1. Cost per acquisition within the same window. Two weeks with the old creative, two with the new one, same budget and same audience. It is the only comparison that does not depend on how much the context shifted.
  2. Product page conversion rate with and without video. It is a percentage, so inflation does not affect it.
  3. Margin per order, not revenue. With moving costs, revenue can grow while the result gets worse.

Why attribution lies

Someone sees the video on TikTok, searches the brand two days later and buys. The dashboard assigns the sale to search. That is not a technical error, it is the limit of the model, which is why it pays to lean on before and after comparisons rather than per channel allocation.

The indicator almost nobody uses here

The cost of a produced video divided by the number of months it keeps working. A video that performs for six months costs a sixth of what it looked like. It is the metric that justifies buying long rights and broad territory from the start.

The cost nobody counts

Internal time. Brief, approvals and revisions cost more than the video in many companies. Removing one approval round improves return more than negotiating the price with the creator.

Keep reading

Find creators and measure the result →

Frequently asked questions

How do I compare with shifting prices?

Within the same time window.

Which metric is unaffected?

Conversion rate, because it is a percentage.

Revenue or margin?

Margin per order.

Do likes matter?

No, they do not correlate with sales.