On October 21, 2026, Adweek reported that Australian advertising software startup Cuttable had raised $20 million in Series A funding led by Airtree Ventures. In its October 22, 2026 report, AdNews said Cuttable’s relaunched platform was available with recommendations about what ads brands should make next.
How Cuttable’s relaunch changes the ad workflow
AdNews describes the relaunch as an expansion beyond ad production into recommendations and learning from results. The reported changes sit alongside retained editing and approval controls:
- Recommendations extend beyond making assets. AdNews reports that the expanded platform helps determine what ads to make next. Its role now includes informing the next creative decision rather than only producing an ad from existing material.
- Performance and business data inform that decision. According to AdNews, the platform draws on Meta and TikTok performance alongside Shopify catalogue and stock data. It also uses information from tools including Klaviyo, ProfitPeak, Triple Whale, Northbeam, and Motion.
- Learning becomes part of the product’s stated role. AdNews describes a system intended to preserve information from ad results and apply it to subsequent work. That is the central shift in the relaunch’s positioning.
- Creative remains editable. AdNews reports that ads stay layered and editable so the brand team retains final approval. The expanded recommendation role does not remove that control.
- Human approval remains before publication. Adweek reports that Cuttable creates ads for Meta and TikTok using existing brand photos and videos. A person approves publication, and the system records the message being tested, such as a price promotion or a product’s origin story.
The distinction matters: the announcement combines a broader decision-making role with an existing asset-to-ad workflow. It is not a report of human review being removed from publication.
How to adjust multi-brand workflows now
Treat this as a paid-creative workflow decision rather than a reason to rebuild every publishing calendar. Faryen’s operating priority is a visible plan with a clear status for each destination. That provides a useful lens for evaluating where generated variations belong and where a person still needs to act.
Keep creative production separate from the publishing plan
Cuttable’s reported workflow concerns paid ads for Meta and TikTok. Keep the evaluation focused on that job: turning existing material into proposed ads and using connected information to guide subsequent creative work.
For teams managing both paid and organic content, the practical response is to keep those responsibilities distinct. A generated ad variation should not automatically displace an editorial post or change a planned publication date. Make that decision through the content plan rather than treating production output as a scheduling instruction.
Faryen’s product direction brings multi-account planning together with format-aware publishing and separate outcomes for each destination. Release status is network-specific, so connector and analytics availability need verification. Integrated review and reusable media are part of that vision rather than a claim that those features have shipped.
Set the evidence boundary before comparing results
AdNews relayed Cuttable’s claim of a 4.4-times return on ad spend and campaign launches in a day rather than two to three weeks. Those are company claims without a published methodology or independent validation in the report. The coverage also leaves integration permissions, incomplete-data safeguards, and detailed approval roles or audit trails unresolved. Its scope is paid-ad creative rather than editorial calendars or broad organic scheduling.
Use those boundaries to shape an evaluation rather than treating the reported outcomes as planning assumptions. Ask to see how the actual workflow operates with the relevant assets and connected information. The useful comparison is whether the product makes the team’s decisions clearer, not whether a headline result can be copied into a forecast.
Review the complete asset-to-ad path
Adweek reports that Cuttable uses existing brand assets and scans Meta content and Shopify orders as inputs. AdNews adds performance and catalogue information to the description of the expanded platform. That makes the connection between inputs and proposed creative an important part of a demonstration.
Ask for a walkthrough that starts with an existing photo or video and ends with a proposed ad. Have the provider explain which connected information informs the recommendation and what the team can edit before approval. These are evaluation questions prompted by the reported workflow, not additional confirmed product features.
For a multi-brand operator, the review should keep the relevant brand and intended destination visible throughout. The point is to understand which source material becomes which proposed message. A polished output alone does not explain that relationship.
Preserve a visible human approval stage
Human approval before publication is explicit in Adweek’s reporting. Keep that stage visible when assessing production speed or deciding where generated ads fit into the calendar.
A finished variation and an approved placement are different states. Scheduling habits should reflect that distinction: production completion should not be treated as permission to publish. Ask which actions need human approval and how a reviewer sees the editable creative before making that decision.
An adaptable editorial calendar remains useful here because the plan needs to show what is ready and what still needs attention. The practical change is to account for review between generation and publication. There is no supported reason to replace that stage with an assumed time saving.
Keep each brand and destination understandable
Faryen’s positioning centers on helping people see the plan and understand each destination’s status. Apply that principle when evaluating an ad-production workflow across several brands: distinguish the creative proposal from the destination where someone intends to publish it.
Ask the provider to show how the workflow handles the relevant brand context and destination during a demonstration. Then assess whether a reviewer can understand what is being proposed without reconstructing the decision from separate screens or messages. This is an operational standard for evaluation rather than a claim about Cuttable’s interface.
Teams comparing tools can use a broader publishing-software evaluation framework to keep the categories clear. Assess paid-creative recommendations for that purpose. Assess calendars and publishing visibility against the separate work they need to support.
Review the tested message rather than only the file
Adweek reports that Cuttable records the messaging each ad tests. Its examples include a price promotion and a product’s origin story. That gives teams a more useful review subject than the output file alone.
During evaluation, ask what gets recorded about that message and how a reviewer can inspect it. A useful demonstration should explain the relationship between the proposed creative and the question the ad is intended to test. The question is not merely whether the image or video looks acceptable.
For creators, this also changes how to assess variations. Review whether the variation still expresses the intended message before considering it ready for approval. If an edit changes that message, the test description should remain part of the review conversation rather than becoming detached from the final creative.
Assess performance in its network context
AdNews reports that Cuttable draws on both advertising performance and business information. Ask how those inputs connect to the recommendation being presented. The practical aim is to understand why a particular ad is proposed next rather than accepting the recommendation solely because it is generated automatically.
Faryen’s analytics direction is to respect each provider’s available data and mark unavailable metrics clearly rather than presenting them as zero. That same standard is useful when reviewing a recommendation: distinguish the information available from the conclusion being suggested.
A disciplined approach to interpreting social performance keeps the next decision tied to understandable evidence. For scheduling purposes, treat a recommendation as a proposal to review. It becomes part of the publishing plan after the team has assessed its message and destination.
Why the company is emphasizing learning
Cuttable CEO and co-founder Sam Kroonenburg told AdNews: “Almost nobody has taught the ads to learn.” He described an ambition to preserve what each ad teaches a brand and use that information in subsequent work.
AdNews also reported that Airtree partner James Cameron said Cuttable’s growth since its seed round had exceeded the firm’s expectations. His statement reflects the investor’s confidence in the company.
For operating teams, the relevant test is more concrete than either statement: can a reviewer understand why a proposed ad comes next and what they are approving? That keeps the learning proposition connected to a visible publishing decision.
Why recommendation clarity is the next milestone
The next technical milestone worth watching is whether Cuttable makes the path from connected data to its next-ad recommendation clear enough for teams to review before approving publication.
