The numerator was the same in both calculations: approximately $47,216 in code-attributed gross revenue over 90 days.

The denominator changed.

  • Against approximately $6,886 in all-in brand spend, the result was 6.86x all-in brand-spend ROAS.
  • Against approximately $4,842 in creator cost, the result was 9.75x creator-cost ROAS.

Neither calculation is automatically the “real” one. They answer different questions.

Question one: what happened against the full historical deal cost?

The all-in brand-spend calculation uses everything recorded in the historical deal cost as the denominator.

That makes it useful when the buyer wants to ask:

How much code-attributed gross revenue did the brand record against the amount it spent on this integration?

The calculation is straightforward:

attributed gross revenue ÷ all-in brand spend = all-in brand-spend ROAS

In this case:

$47,216 ÷ $6,886 ≈ 6.86x

This is the broader historical cost view. It should be the leading number when discussing how the integration performed against what the brand actually spent.

Question two: what did the creator cost produce at pass-through cost?

The creator-cost calculation isolates the amount that reached the creator.

That makes it useful when the buyer wants to ask:

How does the same attributed gross revenue compare with the creator’s recorded cost before the rest of the historical buying structure?

The calculation is:

attributed gross revenue ÷ creator cost = creator-cost ROAS

In this case:

$47,216 ÷ $4,842 ≈ 9.75x

This calculation helps explain why a pass-through creator-cost model matters. Revera’s current model keeps creator cost separate from the professional fee. The brand pays the creator directly at the negotiated rate.

The larger number is not automatically the better claim

The 9.75x figure is larger because the denominator is smaller. That does not make the underlying revenue more certain, more incremental, or more profitable.

Both ratios use attributed gross revenue. The available evidence does not establish:

  • how many orders would have occurred without the placement;
  • contribution profit after product cost, returns, taxes, and other expenses;
  • whether another creator or product would repeat the result;
  • whether every attributed order was caused by the integration.

A responsible report states the numerator, denominator, evidence window, and evidence level beside the ratio.

Keep the currency basis visible

The underlying deal used several currencies:

  • €41,143.13 in code-attributed gross revenue;
  • €6,000 in all-in brand spend;
  • £3,650 in creator cost.

The approximate USD values use European Central Bank reference rates from March 13, 2026, the brand invoice date. Currency conversion can change the rounded presentation, so the evidence ledger should preserve the original amounts and reference date.

Use the ratio that matches the decision

Use all-in brand-spend ROAS when reviewing the result against the brand’s complete recorded deal cost.

Use creator-cost ROAS when evaluating the creator economics or comparing a pass-through creator-cost structure.

Use neither ratio as a substitute for contribution profit or incrementality.

The best report is not the one with the highest number. It is the one that makes the next budget decision easier to defend.

Read the complete anonymous automotive creator integration evidence record or review what Revera owns across managed influencer marketing.