A popular piece of advice tells small brands to drop Triple Whale and Northbeam and read platform numbers directly instead. The diagnosis is right. The fix quietly repeats the mistake it's trying to escape.
A widely shared piece of advice tells brands under $1M a month to cancel Triple Whale and Northbeam and go back to reading Meta and Google's own numbers directly, correcting for the obvious platform bias with a rough multiplier. The starting complaint behind it is real: three different ROAS numbers on the same spend, no way to know which one to trust, and a $500-a-month subscription that never actually settled the argument. Telling a brand that size to stop paying for a tool that doesn't answer the question isn't bad advice. It's honest.
The part that doesn't hold up is the fix. "Branded search over-attributes, video under-attributes, so subtract roughly this much" is a rule of thumb built from someone else's accounts, applied uniformly to yours regardless of your funnel, your category, or your actual customer path. That's still a model. It's just an unpaid one nobody's testing against your real numbers, instead of a paid one at least documented somewhere. Swapping a platform's guess for a spreadsheet's guess isn't the upgrade it feels like.
The strongest part of the advice is telling brands to watch new customers relative to spend instead of a blended ROAS. That's a real improvement. It's also quietly fragile: it depends on a clean, verified new-customer count, and that count breaks the moment a brand adds a subscription app, opens a second storefront, or starts selling through a POS system too, because now three systems each have their own idea of what "new" means, and nothing forces them to agree. Canceling the paid dashboards is fine. What actually fixes the problem underneath them is a reconciled record built from your own order and customer data, checked against whatever any platform, or any spreadsheet, tells you.