Cases from our records
Client names are withheld. These are not promises of results; they show how we think and what we did.
ACoS 230.9%: ads were running, at a loss
A skincare brand. Campaigns were generating sales, but the ad cost of each sale was twice the selling price. Search terms were separated one by one and losing targets were shut off.
$10,414 in sales, −$4,000 net
Read line by line: Amazon fees 47%, returns 17%, product cost 38%. Revenue was growing while profit went negative. The plan was to fix unit economics before growing.
One label claim, product removed
A supplement was removed because of a phrase treated as a drug claim. The phrase was removed, documents were prepared and the reinstatement steps were carried out.
1,593 excess units: sell through, don't raise prices
The client planned a 20% Q4 price increase. Once excess stock and aged-inventory fees were calculated, the advice reversed: a controlled sell-through.
"Only one item in the box" complaints
The earlier theory was disproved; the root cause was a phrase on the carton that described the pack contents wrongly. Customers expected a multi-pack.
We corrected our own diagnosis
An ingredient finding of ours turned out to be wrong with new test data. We were the first to tell the client, in writing.
Cases come from our own records; client names are withheld. Past results are not a promise of future results. Names and details will be added only for cases where the client gives permission.
Facing something similar? Let's start with a free analysis.
Free growth deck →Reviews are being collected
If a review is published, the client's permission and any material connection will be stated next to it.