Black Friday and Cyber Monday 2025 were, by every headline metric, a massive success.
Shopify merchants generated $14.6B in sales over the BFCM weekend, up 27% YoY. More than 81 million customers bought from Shopify brands, and nearly 95,000 merchants recorded their highest‑selling day ever. On the surface, ecommerce has never looked healthier.
But when we looked beyond the weekend and into the weeks immediately after Cyber Monday, a very different story emerged.
This article combines:
- Aggregated performance data from several hundred ecommerce brands operating across BFCM into early December
- Broader market benchmarks from Shopify, eMarketer, and other third‑party sources
The goal isn’t to challenge BFCM’s success. It’s to explain why so many brands felt a sharp hangover immediately afterward—and what actually changed.
The Post‑BFCM Cliff Is Real
It’s important to be clear about what this drop looked like in practice.
For many brands, performance didn’t slowly cool down after Cyber Monday. It broke sharply, often within days. Teams went from record-breaking weekends straight into dashboards that looked alarmingly quiet.
This wasn’t just a case of ads slowing down. Storewide revenue, orders, and average order value all moved in the same direction at the same time.
What surprised many operators was how universal this pattern was. We saw it across brands of different sizes, across multiple verticals, and across both paid and owned channels. Even brands that historically performed well in December felt the drop sooner than expected.
In short: the BFCM surge pulled demand forward more aggressively than most teams planned for.
Across hundreds of ecommerce brands, performance dropped sharply in the week following Cyber Monday:
- Revenue declined 50–72% week‑over‑week
- Order volume fell by roughly 50%, even where marketing spend stayed relatively stable
- Average order value dropped 30–50% for brands that relied heavily on discounts
This wasn’t limited to one category. Fashion, beauty, food, lifestyle, pet, and home brands all showed similar post‑BFCM behavior.
The drop wasn’t subtle, and it wasn’t just a return to baseline. For many brands, it was a step‑change down.
Demand Fell Faster Than Costs
One of the hardest parts of the post‑BFCM period was that expenses didn’t fall as quickly as revenue.
Consumer urgency dropped almost immediately after Cyber Monday. The mindset shifted from “buy now” to “compare, think, and wait.” At the same time, competition across paid channels stayed intense.
This created a painful squeeze. Even brands that held spend flat saw efficiency decline. Fewer high‑intent shoppers were available, but the auction environment was still priced for peak demand.
This mismatch is one reason December felt so unforgiving. The math stopped working long before teams had time to react.
One of the biggest mismatches post‑BFCM was between cooling demand and sticky acquisition costs.
While consumer urgency faded after Cyber Monday, advertising costs remained elevated:
- Average CPMs increased by ~38% compared to pre‑BFCM periods
- Food & Beverage CPMs rose 81%
- Clothing CPMs increased 52%
Third‑party benchmarks confirm this wasn’t isolated. CPM increases of 38–152% during BFCM have been reported across regions and categories.
The result was predictable: even brands that didn’t scale spend aggressively saw efficiency deteriorate because costs normalized more slowly than demand.
Clicks Didn’t Disappear. Conversions Did.
A common instinct in December is to assume ads or traffic quality are the problem. The data suggests otherwise.
People were still clicking. They were still browsing products. But many stopped short of purchasing.
This points to a shift in shopper psychology, not awareness. After BFCM, shoppers moved into research mode. They compared prices, checked reviews, and evaluated whether something was a good gift — often on mobile, often across several sessions.
If the answer wasn’t immediately clear, they left.
This is why conversion rate became the weakest link for many stores, even when traffic looked healthy.
Another consistent pattern was a widening gap between traffic and purchases.
Across categories:
- Click‑through rates often held in the 2–3% range (within healthy benchmarks)
- Conversion rates dropped to ~0.9–1.2%, well below the typical ecommerce average of 2–3%
- Cost per purchase increased 40–100% despite similar traffic levels
This matters because it shifts the diagnosis.
Ads were still reaching people. Shoppers were still browsing. But many weren’t ready to buy.
December shoppers behave differently:
- They compare more
- They research gifts across multiple channels
- They hesitate when the value or gifting context isn’t immediately clear
This aligns with broader consumer data showing that 3 in 4 shoppers buy across multiple channels and 81% of purchases now happen through mobile apps, where friction is felt fastest.
Retargeting Hit a Wall
Retargeting is often expected to carry performance after big sales events. Post‑BFCM, that assumption didn’t hold.
The reason is straightforward. BFCM consumes demand. The people most likely to buy — especially those motivated by discounts — largely convert during the event itself.
What’s left afterward are colder audiences. They may still browse, but their willingness to purchase at full price is much lower.
This explains why many teams saw spend continue without results. Retargeting wasn’t broken. The audience simply changed.
Post‑BFCM retargeting underperformed faster than most brands expected.
Short‑window retargeting (14–30 days):
- ROAS dropped from roughly 0.88 to ~0.52
- Some campaigns delivered zero purchases despite continued spend
The reason is simple: BFCM burns through high‑intent audiences.
People who were going to buy—especially discount‑motivated shoppers—largely did so during the weekend. What remained in short retargeting pools were lower‑intent browsers and deal‑seekers unwilling to pay full price.
AOV Became the Deciding Factor
As volume dropped, basket size became the main lever separating stronger performers from weaker ones.
Brands that depended on single discounted products struggled to maintain momentum. Once discounts disappeared, shoppers had little reason to spend more.
Brands that reframed their offer did better. Gift sets, bundles, and threshold‑based incentives gave shoppers a reason to increase cart size, even if overall traffic was down.
In December, many brands learned that you can’t out‑traffic shrinking demand. You have to out‑position it.
Post‑BFCM performance diverged sharply based on how brands approached average order value.
We observed two very different outcomes:
- Some brands saw AOV increases of up to 58%
- Others experienced AOV declines of ~50%
The difference wasn’t traffic. It was merchandising.
Brands that recovered AOV tended to:
- Lead with gift sets and bundles
- Push free‑shipping thresholds that encouraged larger carts
- Add gift wrapping or perceived‑value upgrades
In one example, a brand increased AOV from roughly $80 to $136 simply by repositioning bundles and adding a spend threshold.
This matters because volume alone couldn’t offset shrinking baskets. AOV strategy became more important than raw traffic in December.
Creative Fatigue Accelerated
December compressed timelines across the board — including creative performance.
Consumers were exposed to far more ads than usual in a short window. By early December, many had already seen similar offers dozens of times.
As a result, creative that performed well in November stopped standing out. Engagement dropped quickly, and frequency climbed faster than normal.
Brands that refreshed messaging more often, and leaned into simpler, more human creative, tended to hold attention longer than those relying on polished but repetitive assets.
Creative fatigue also arrived faster than usual.
Under normal conditions, winning creative often lasts 14–21 days. In December, fatigue appeared within 5–7 days:
- CTRs dropped from ~2.1% to ~0.5% in a single week
- Frequency crossed 2.0 much faster than usual
- Click costs rose even when early performance looked stable
This aligns with the broader market reality: consumers were exposed to dramatically more ads than normal during BFCM. Many November “winners” simply blended into the noise by early December.
The Market Context: Why This Is Happening
None of this is happening in isolation.
Holiday demand is being pulled forward each year. A growing share of shoppers now buy before BFCM even begins. Others wait specifically for Black Friday or Cyber Monday and complete most of their holiday shopping in a single weekend.
At the same time, shopping behavior is becoming more fragmented. Mobile dominates traffic. Buy Now Pay Later reduces friction. AI tools make price comparison faster. Shoppers are more informed and less patient.
All of this compresses demand into shorter bursts. When the burst ends, the drop feels sudden — even if total seasonal demand hasn’t disappeared.
Zooming out, the post‑BFCM hangover makes more sense in context:
- 45% of ecommerce sales growth occurred in the two weeks leading into and including BFCM
- Nearly half of US consumers still start holiday shopping on Black Friday itself
- 24% of shoppers now shop before BFCM even begins
In other words, demand is being pulled forward aggressively.
Add to that:
- Mobile now accounts for 59% of global ecommerce spend
- 60% of US consumers have used Buy Now Pay Later
- 54% of shoppers plan to use AI tools for comparison and research
Shoppers are more prepared, more informed, and more selective than ever. That combination compresses demand into shorter, more intense windows—and leaves quieter periods immediately after.
Don’t Miss the Second Spike: Q5
While early December was difficult for many brands, the story doesn’t end at Christmas.
The period from December 27 through mid‑January often brings a quieter but meaningful second wave of demand. Gift cards get redeemed. Returns turn into exchanges. Shoppers spend on themselves rather than others.
Brands that planned for this window ahead of time were able to recover some of the momentum lost post‑BFCM. Those that shut everything down after December 23 often missed it entirely.
One final insight from both internal and external data: many brands underestimate Q5.
The window from December 27 to mid‑January often brings a second revenue spike driven by:
- Gift card redemptions
- Returns and exchanges
- “New Year, New Me” purchases
Brands that prepared campaigns ahead of time—rather than shutting down after December 23—were better positioned to capture this secondary demand.
Final Thoughts
BFCM 2025 delivered record‑breaking numbers. That part of the story is real.
But the weeks that followed revealed a harder truth. Demand was concentrated. Costs stayed high. And many brands were left adjusting on the fly.
The post‑BFCM cliff wasn’t a failure of ecommerce. It was a signal that the market has matured.
Winning in this environment requires different expectations. December is no longer a straight extension of Black Friday. It is its own phase, with different buyer psychology and different constraints.
Brands that recognize this — and plan accordingly — are better positioned not just to survive the hangover, but to build momentum into the new year.
BFCM 2025 was a record‑breaking event. But the data shows that success came with a cost.
Demand was pulled forward, costs stayed elevated, and many brands entered December with weaker fundamentals than expected.
The post‑BFCM cliff wasn’t a failure of ecommerce. It was a reminder that the market has changed:
- Shoppers are faster, more selective, and more mobile
- Discounts alone no longer carry momentum into December
- AOV strategy, merchandising, and timing matter more than ever
Understanding what changed after BFCM is the first step toward planning for what comes next.