The RealReal Predictive Creator Casting Test
Submitted by FohrAgency IPI Score 18/100

The RealReal Predictive Creator Casting Test

Influencer Marketing

Fohr split one creator campaign for The RealReal into two matched phases and reports predictive casting returning 12.5x more views per dollar than gut-feel casting.

12.5xViews per Dollar
440%More Views
2.2MViews
500%More Impressions

About the campaign

Fohr ran a split creator campaign for The RealReal in which predictive casting returned 12.5x more views per dollar. The work set out to get more views from every dollar The RealReal spent on creators. The test asked whether the way creators are chosen changes what a campaign returns.

The agency split one campaign into two identical phases that drew on the same talent pool. Only one variable changed between the two phases, which was how the creators were chosen. One phase relied on gut-feel casting, and the other relied on predictive casting.

The agency reports that predictive casting beat gut-feel casting outright. The campaign recorded 2.2M views and 440% more views. Each dollar returned 12.5x more views. The gated version of the agency cites 500% more impressions and 10X more efficient spend.

Case in 60 seconds

Creator casting for The RealReal had rested on gut feel, so there was no way to know which creators in one talent pool would return the most views for each dollar before the money was spent.

Two creators drawn from the same pool can return very different views for the same spend, because predicted performance separates them in ways that instinct alone does not register when a roster is chosen.

Fohr made creator selection the variable under test, running one campaign as two identical phases so that predictive casting could be measured directly against gut-feel casting on the same talent pool.

Fohr split a single creator campaign for The RealReal into two identical phases with the same talent pool, casting one phase by gut feel and the other by predictive casting while every other variable stayed fixed.

Fohr reports that predictive casting beat gut-feel casting outright, with 2.2M views, 440% more views and 12.5x more views per dollar, while the gated case study cites 500% more impressions and 10X more efficient spend.

Strategy Breakdown

Casting creators by judgement makes creator spend hard to defend, because a brand cannot see in advance which creators in a pool will earn their fee, so Fohr built the campaign to make selection measurable.

Creative & Execution System

Partners

  • Fohr

Results & Evidence

MetricValue
Views per Dollar12.5x views per dollar
More Views440% more views
Views2.2M views
More Impressions500% more impressions

Why Fohr's strategy worked

  1. 1

    Holding the talent pool and the campaign constant while changing only the casting method isolates selection as the cause, so any gap in views per dollar can be credited to how creators were chosen.

  2. 2

    Views per dollar makes a casting test legible to a client, because a raw view count rises with spend while an efficiency ratio shows whether the same budget worked harder under a different selection method.

Related Case studies