the math
same budget, different universe
Same budget. Same market. Same objective.
11 times the leads.
Not because we're better at targeting.
Because we changed what
targeting means.
the comparison
£100,000 budget. Real campaign. Mid-market brand.
These aren't hypotheticals.
They're projections based on verified CPM benchmarks, documented engagement rates, and our cost structure.
why such a gap?
The difference isn't optimisation. It's not better targeting or cheaper inventory.
The difference is structural.
Meta shows ads to people who might be interested. Xplorify only counts people who walked somewhere and captured something.
100% of engagements are intentional.
Every user who shares brings new users at zero cost.
With K-factors approaching 1.0, acquisition compounds instead of depleting.
No one can fake walking to a location and capturing an AR object.
Every engagement is a real human in the real world.
Each user can save, share, navigate, and buy.
Multiple revenue events from a single acquisition.
Meta gives one click.
what Xplorify keeps
From that £100,000 campaign, Xplorify's take is approximately:
The rest goes to infrastructure.
AR content creation.
Campaign management.
Prize fulfilment.
Platform operations.
Twenty-two percent of a campaign.
That's the business model, right?
The campaign economics are solid.
But the campaign isn't the business.
The network is.
What happens when every user brings more users?
That's where growth becomes self-sustaining.