Founding customer
We built this because we needed it.
Signet has no customer logos on this page and no testimonials from people we sold to. Its founding customer is Telo, the company that built it, and everything below is our own account of running our own business on it.
In our words
We took our Event Match Quality from 5.5 to 9.5 across our funnel. We did that work ourselves, on our own account, using what Signet showed us about which identity we were holding and which we were actually sending.
We scaled ad spend 6x while ROAS held. Better match quality meant the platform could find our buyers, and knowing which creative actually closed revenue meant we scaled the right things.
That is our experience of our own account. We are telling you what happened to us, not promising it will happen to you. What we will promise is the part that is ours to control: you will be able to see exactly what the numbers rest on, including when they rest on too little.
Our own revenue, split three ways
A single unattributed number would say we failed. We did not.
Most attribution tools would look at our last 90 days and report that 86.4% of our revenue could not be tied to an ad. That number is true and it is useless, because it describes three completely different situations as though they were one problem.
- 83.7%Predates measurementPredates measurement, not from your ads
- 13.6%Tied to an ad-driven saleTied to a sale, counted in ROAS
- 2.7%Measured, not yet tiedMeasured, not yet tied to an ad sale
The large number is not a matching failure. It is subscribers who were paying us before Signet started recording sales, so no ad could ever be credited for them. Separating that from the 2.7% we genuinely have not tied yet is the difference between a number that panics you and a number you can act on.
Telo's own account. Trailing 90 days to 22 July 2026, USD, across 3,449 revenue events. Measurement began 25 May 2026. Read from the same loader the product renders with, not recomputed for this page.
What it refuses to tell us
Our own product will not rank most of our own creative.
Run Edge against our account and the first thing it does is decline. Of 47 image families in our own portfolio, 21 are withheld from ranking because they have not produced enough outcomes to support one. Our single call to action is refused outright, because it rides on 98.6% of the ads that made us money and a thing present on nearly everything explains nothing.
We could have shipped a version that ranks all 47 and flatters us. The company that built the tool is the easiest customer in the world to flatter, and this is the number that proves we did not.
What it will tell us
Which of our videos closed the most. In order, with the evidence.
Video is a grain the platform does report, so this is an answer that honestly exists. Three of our video families cleared the sample floor and 3 more did not, which is why the ones below carry their sample beside them rather than underneath in smaller type.
The order is the whole answer. We are not publishing what these videos earned, and the ranking loses nothing by it: what you would act on is which one to make more of.
- Best closing videoSolid
Rank 1 · 23 attributed outcomes · 90d
Across 2 ads - Video 2Solid
Rank 2 · 8 attributed outcomes · 90d
Across 1 ad - Video 3Solid
Rank 3 · 5 attributed outcomes · 90d
Across 2 ads
Order only, no amounts. The count is attributed outcomes over each family's distinct ads, which is the sample the product itself ranks on. Read on 22 July 2026 through the product's own loader.
Why it cannot go finer, and what we do about it
Every ad we run is mixed by the platform. We built for that, because we had to.
Our entire active ad portfolio uses dynamic creative, which is exactly the case where single-element attribution is impossible for anyone. We could not build a product that pretended otherwise and then use it ourselves. So Edge names the limit, delivers the grain the data supports, and teaches the way past it.
126 creatives across 158 ads, all of them dynamic, all of them read the same way yours would be.
The way past it is structural rather than clever: isolate the creative your own data already backs into its own ads, so the platform stops mixing it with everything else. That produces separable variance, and when it appears Edge upgrades the grain by itself and says so, citing the ads that made it possible. Revert the structure and the grain degrades back just as visibly. The ceiling is a staircase, and the product's job is to show you the next step rather than to pretend it is standing on the top one.
The company selling you this measures itself with it.
Every module is part of one platform. You get all of it, and the tiers differ by scale rather than by which capabilities are switched on.