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 through loadRevenueCoverageSummary, the same loader the product renders with, not recomputed for this page.
Our own product will not rank most of our own creative.
Run Forge 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.
Our closed revenue divides across creative families. With the evidence.
The product assigns each eligible closed-revenue contribution to one creative family. That makes this a partition rather than a ranking that overlaps with itself. Every family shown cleared the closed-deal floor, and every index carries its sample beside it.
The index is the whole disclosure. It shows each family relative to the leading one without publishing what any family earned in dollars.
- Leading creative familySolid
Index 100 · 12 closed · 90d
- Creative family 2Solid
Index 85 · 7 closed · 90d
- Creative family 3Solid
Index 65 · 13 closed · 90d
- Creative family 4Solid
Index 28 · 4 closed · 90d
- Creative family 5Solid
Index 4 · 3 closed · 90d
18 families. 100% coverage. Values are indexed to the leading family, not amounts. 13 more below the closed-deal floor.
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 Forge 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 Forge 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.
It is one chain rather than a set of tools you wire together yourself. You get all of it, and the tiers differ by scale rather than by which capabilities are switched on.