A skincare brand launched a serum using 140 micro-influencers, each paid in product plus Rs 15,000, total spend Rs 32 lakh. The campaign generated 8.4 million impressions and 610,000 engagements. Website traffic rose 240% in the launch fortnight. Conversion rate on that traffic was 0.4% against the site average of 2.1%. Three thousand units sold at Rs 1,200 against a target of 12,000. Return rate on those units was 14% against a category norm of 6%. Post-launch, 22% of the influencers' audiences who visited returned within 30 days.
Say what the campaign was for, read the evidence, separate idea from execution from media, and propose an alternative at the same budget.
100 points, 60% to pass.
Reach worked and selling did not, which is a specific and diagnosable failure. Conversion at 0.4% against a 2.1% site average means the traffic was poorly qualified — curiosity rather than intent — which is what a broad micro-influencer buy produces. The return rate at more than double the norm is the strongest signal and most answers miss it: buyers were not told what the product does, so it failed their expectations. Strong critiques separate the media choice (140 small accounts, no targeting coherence) from the creative (no proposition, only presence) and note that 22% returning within 30 days is a genuine asset that was not built on. The alternative should concentrate spend on fewer, better-matched creators with a claim to test.