Their customers knew the glove's manufacturer by name. They didn't know who sold it to them. That was the actual brief.

The partner supplies work gloves and safety equipment to builders, factories and tradespeople across Turkey: fast, competitively priced, reliable. What it did not have was a name of its own in the customer's mind. Ask a buyer what brand they trust and they would name the manufacturer printed on the glove, not the company that got it to them. That gap, a supplier doing a brand's job without a brand's recognition, was the real starting point, not more social media.

The obstacle

The obstacle underneath the obstacle

E-commerce has one structural weakness for a product like this: nobody can touch the glove before they buy it. Texture, flexibility, grip, the things that actually decide a purchase, do not survive a product photo on a white background. Most competitors in the category are not active on social media at all, which is an opportunity, but it also means there was no local playbook to borrow from. The content had to do the touching the customer could not.

The system

The system

Regular content across Facebook and Instagram, on a two-week planning rhythm, built to a fixed visual language: the brand's own red, consistent fonts, a 3D mascot reserved for programme and brand-trust content, and a rule that every format carries its own safe-zone and naming standard rather than one template stretched across all of them. Comments get worked daily, in the brand's own voice, and one shoot a month feeds weeks of platform-native cuts rather than a single video repurposed without adaptation.

The decision that mattered

The decision that mattered more than any single post

Not every reaction to machine-assisted content is hostile. One comment on a generated Reel said, plainly, that real footage would have been better. It was a fair point. The reason generation entered the workflow at all was not preference: budget, timeline, and the practical difficulty of filming this business's own premises made real footage hard to get consistently. Rather than defend the choice, we turned it into an offer: send us the product, let real customers use it in their own workshops and sites, and we will build content from what actually happens. Cost: the product and shipping. No influencer fee.

A smaller signal came the same way: a customer comment mentioned using one of the gloves at the gym, a use case the brand had not planned content around. That is not a metric. It is where the next content angle actually came from.

Delivery

Delivery, measured honestly

• Facebook 63 posts in 91 days, about 4.8 a week, inside the contracted three to five a week band.
• Instagram 32 posts in 76 days, about 2.9 a week, modestly under the same band.
• Facebook followers Plus 95 over 13 weeks on one measurement basis; a second basis in the same export reads differently, noted, not hidden.
• Scope expansion LinkedIn, TikTok and YouTube added as an unbilled two-month trial, initiated by us, running through 30 September 2026.

We are not publishing a reach or engagement number here. Two of our own reporting periods disagree with each other by roughly a hundred times on reach, and two platforms show zero recorded website clicks that are more likely a tracking gap than a true zero. Those get resolved before they get published, not smoothed over.

What the paid team is seeing

A third-party read, stated as one

This part is not ours to measure: we manage organic content only, not the brand's paid advertising, which runs through a separate media-buying team. But that team came back to the brand with a number worth repeating: roughly half of incoming orders now trace to content we produced. On one day they checked at random, 15 orders came in, 7 from our content. Their read: it is carrying a disproportionate share of both spend efficiency and revenue.

One campaign snapshot they shared shows why: across 14 ads, six live and the rest paused for testing, the six creatives of ours that were running had spent 33,737 TL and returned 1,322,563 TL in purchase value, a return of roughly 39 times, across 147 purchases at an average cost of 229.50 TL each.

We state this plainly rather than folding it into our own numbers: it is a third-party read from the brand's own ad team, on one campaign window, not something we measured or exported ourselves.

The clearest signal of trust right now is not a metric. It is that the brand agreed to a three-platform trial outside the paid contract, and that its own paid team is volunteering numbers like these unprompted. That is a decision to keep going, not yet a result.

This is five months into an ongoing partnership, sourced from our own social export dated 31 July 2026, the founder's transcript, and our growth proposal. No reach, engagement or website-click figure is published, because two of our own reports conflict on them, and that gets resolved before it gets published, not smoothed over. No customer name, photo or quote is used, since no written consent is on file. The paid-team figures are a third-party read, labelled as one. The partner's name is withheld at the founder's decision.

What you would get

The same start, before anyone talks about money

The first conversation is free, and we do not quote before we have looked. That is the standard, not the exception. Request yours.