Results
Real results from real accounts, anonymised.
Every result here comes from an account we ran or advised: our own venues and online brands, and clients’ businesses. We keep the reports on file. Each one shows what happened alongside a change, with the numbers.
From client accounts and our own venues and online brands, anonymised. Individual results vary. Results disclaimer
- From our own accounts our own venues and online brands (10 results)
- From a client’s account clients’ businesses, anonymised (17 results)
Online stores on Meta
Client stores first, then lessons from our own online brands. Most are about the inputs Meta’s AI learns from: budget, structure, offer and what you measure.
Several ad sets folded into one
A client's online store consolidated several ad sets into one, at similar spend.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$6,540 | A$6,840 |
| Purchases | 131 | 205 |
| Cost per purchase | A$49.92 | A$33.37 |
| ROAS | 2.44x | 3.81x |
Looking past Meta's reported ROAS
A client's online store judged its ads on whole-store numbers. Meta's reported ROAS fell while the store's own numbers rose.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Meta's reported ROAS | 4.93x | 4.09x |
| Whole-store revenue | A$59,000 | A$65,940 |
| MER (store revenue ÷ ad spend) | 3.51x | 3.93x |
| First-time customers | 193 | 269 |
| Returning buyers in prospecting purchases | 64% | 31% |
Fixing the offer before adding spend
A client's online store improved its offer and kept Meta spend exactly the same.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Meta spend | A$5,660 | A$5,660 |
| Average order value | A$85 | A$104 |
| Purchases | 156 | 182 |
| Cost per purchase | A$36.28 | A$31.10 |
| MER (store revenue ÷ ad spend) | 3.85x | 4.87x |
Meta's recommendations, then a reset
A client's online store acted on recommendations that raised its Meta spend, then reset.
| Original | After recommendations | After reset | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta spend | A$7,560 | A$11,340 | A$8,190 |
| Cost per purchase | A$40.65 | A$51.31 | A$38.45 |
| Whole-store revenue | A$49,320 | A$51,150 | A$52,740 |
| MER (store revenue ÷ ad spend) | 5.22x | 3.87x | 5.23x |
A second-piece offer
A client's fashion store ran a second-piece offer.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$8,190 | A$8,820 |
| Average order value | A$113 | A$139 |
| Purchases | 203 | 235 |
| Cost per purchase | A$40.34 | A$37.53 |
| ROAS | 2.80x | 3.70x |
Moving budget from past buyers to new customers
A client's beauty store moved budget from its past-buyer campaign to its new-customer campaign.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| New-customer campaign spend | A$3,240 | A$5,130 |
| Past-buyer campaign spend | A$3,570 | A$2,110 |
| First-time purchases | 74 | 129 |
| Cost per first-time purchase | A$43.78 | A$39.77 |
| Overall account ROAS | 3.65x | 3.53x |
A free-delivery threshold
A client's homewares store set a free-delivery threshold and kept ad spend flat.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$5,070 | A$5,070 |
| Average order value | A$99 | A$126 |
| Purchases | 127 | 147 |
| Cost per purchase | A$39.92 | A$34.49 |
| ROAS | 2.48x | 3.65x |
Still images against video, same weeks
A client's jewellery store ran still-image ads and video ads side by side, with the same spend behind each.
| Video ads | Still-image ads | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$3,810 | A$3,810 |
| Purchases | 73 | 98 |
| Cost per purchase | A$52.19 | A$38.88 |
| ROAS | 3.14x | 4.22x |
| Outbound click-through rate | 1.16% | 1.47% |
Optimising for purchases with no purchase history
One of our own online brands was new, with no purchase history, and optimised for purchases anyway. Delivery drifted to people aged 45+ in the Facebook feed.
| Spent optimising for purchases | ~A$1,300 |
|---|---|
| Purchase events Meta received | 0 |
| Real add-to-carts in 18 days | ~5 |
Meta's count against ours
One of our own online brands ran retargeting ads with short films, then compared Meta's clicks with the page views its own site recorded.
| Link clicks (Meta) | 74 |
|---|---|
| Landing page views | 35 |
| Reels, Stories and in-stream: clicks → page views | 14 → 1 |
Ads that ran in a format nobody chose
One of our own online brands had single-image ads shown as catalogue carousels of about 40 cards before it was caught.
| Spent in the wrong format | ~A$59 |
|---|---|
| Impressions | ~1,600 |
A video-only ad set
One of our own online brands ran a video-only ad set, then moved its next ad set to still images.
| Spent in 7 days | ~A$133 |
|---|---|
| Add-to-carts | 0 |
Online stores on Google
Client stores on Google Shopping and Search, judged on purchases and first-time customers.
Homewares through Google Shopping
A client's homewares store ran Google Shopping.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Spend | A$8,890 | A$9,540 |
| Purchases | 183 | 219 |
| Average order value | A$153 | A$163 |
| Cost per purchase | A$48.58 | A$43.56 |
| ROAS | 3.15x | 3.74x |
Brand and non-brand Search, separated
A client's business split its brand and non-brand Search spend.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Total spend | A$7,410 | A$8,050 |
| Brand spend | A$2,970 | A$1,910 |
| Non-brand spend | A$4,440 | A$6,140 |
| First-time customers from Search | 82 | 142 |
| Search spend per first-time customer | A$90.37 | A$56.69 |
| Combined ROAS | 4.84x | 4.80x |
Fashion through Google Shopping
A client's fashion store ran Google Shopping.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Spend | A$6,570 | A$6,990 |
| Purchases | 164 | 195 |
| Average order value | A$118 | A$142 |
| Cost per purchase | A$40.06 | A$35.85 |
| ROAS | 2.95x | 3.96x |
Hospitality and accommodation
Venue results are counted in covers and bookings from the venue’s own systems. Total covers include guests who didn’t come from ads.
Direct-booking packages
A client's accommodation business advertised direct-booking packages and tracked direct share from its own systems.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$2,240 | A$3,810 |
| Meta-attributed direct bookings | 22 | 51 |
| Cost per attributed booking | A$101.82 | A$74.71 |
| Direct share of all bookings | 24.68% | 35.44% |
| Attributed booking value | A$12,430 | A$30,345 |
A set-menu night, judged on covers
A client's venue advertised a set-menu night and judged it on covers in its own booking records, over two 28-day periods.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$345 | A$810 |
| Paid-tagged covers | 28 | 99 |
| Cost per paid-tagged cover | A$12.32 | A$8.18 |
| Total attended covers (four services) | 156 | 269 |
A Thursday offer
A client's venue promoted a single-day Thursday offer and counted the covers its ads booked, over two 28-day periods.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$445 | A$725 |
| Paid-tagged covers | 33 | 84 |
| Cost per paid-tagged cover | A$13.48 | A$8.63 |
| Total attended covers (four Thursdays) | 143 | 237 |
Filling midweek, then moving spend to Saturday
One of our own venues raised midweek spend until midweek was near capacity, then moved the money to Saturday. 28-day periods.
| Before | Midweek near capacity | Spend moved to Saturday | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total ad spend | A$740 | A$1,040 | A$1,040 |
| Midweek covers | 182 | 320 | 315 |
| Saturday covers | 207 | 216 | 291 |
| Combined covers | 389 | 536 | 606 |
A set-menu ad rewritten to show what the price covers
A client's restaurant rewrote its set-menu ad to show everything the price included, with the same spend in each 28-day period.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$575 | A$575 |
| Outbound click-through rate | 0.92% | 1.56% |
| Paid-tagged covers | 41 | 72 |
| Cost per paid-tagged cover | A$14.02 | A$7.99 |
Fixing an offer guests couldn't book
One of our own venues advertised an offer its booking system would not take. 21 days with the fault, then 21 days after the repair.
| With the fault | After the fix | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$670 | A$670 |
| Offer bookings (all contact routes) | 4 | 21 |
| Ad spend per offer booking | A$167.50 | A$31.90 |
| Attended offer covers | 16 | 84 |
Christmas functions, judged past cost per enquiry
One of our own venues ran Christmas function ads on Meta a few years ago, over two 28-day periods.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$1,910 | A$2,340 |
| Cost per enquiry | A$29.84 | A$30.00 |
| Qualified enquiries | 27 | 42 |
| Deposit-backed bookings | 9 | 14 |
| Cost per confirmed booking | A$212.22 | A$167.14 |
Bookings Ads Manager never saw
One of our own venues tracked where every booking came from. Over four months, the share arriving through Google rose, and none of it showed in Ads Manager.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Share of all bookings coming through Google | 3% | 17% |
A bar offer run on landing page views
One of our own bars ran a Traffic campaign optimised for landing page views, with five offer ads, for about five and a half weeks.
| Spent | A$1,307 |
|---|---|
| Link click-through rate | 3.15% |
| Cost per landing page view | A$0.29 |
A supplier-funded partnership ad
One of our own bars had a spirits supplier fund its menu-launch ads, run as a partnership ad on the venue's own Reel.
| Ad spend funded by the supplier | ~A$1,500 |
|---|
Salons and gyms
Both judged on paying customers, not enquiries.
Enquiries followed through to attended appointments
A client's salon judged its ads on attended first appointments, not enquiries.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$1,590 | A$1,910 |
| Enquiries | 81 | 86 |
| Qualified enquiries | 46 | 63 |
| Attended first appointments | 25 | 39 |
| Cost per attended first appointment | A$63.60 | A$48.97 |
Fewer leads, more paying starters
A client's gym got fewer enquiries and more paying customers.
| Before | After | |
|---|---|---|
| Ad spend | A$2,530 | A$2,860 |
| Enquiries | 139 | 126 |
| Qualified enquiries | 59 | 77 |
| Paying starter-programme customers | 20 | 34 |
| Cost per paying starter | A$126.50 | A$84.12 |
How to read these results
- They’re real and anonymised. Own results come from our own venues and online brands. Client results are supplied from clients’ accounts and reports, which we keep on file. We never name a business.
- Before and after isn’t cause and effect. Seasons, prices, competitors and word of mouth move numbers too. Each result shows what moved alongside a change.
- They aren’t typical, and they aren’t a promise. Your results depend on your product, offer, website, budget, market and how closely you follow your plan.
- Revenue isn’t profit. Attributed revenue, booking value, contract value and potential commission are before costs. Your plan judges ads on what you keep.
- Meta’s numbers and yours differ. ROAS is Meta’s count of the sales it credits to your ads. MER is your store’s revenue divided by total ad spend. They measure different things.
Find out what’s holding your ads back.
Three minutes, free, and the diagnosis is worked out from your own answers. Your full plan is A$149 incl. GST if you want it.
Free quiz and check-up. No card needed. Questions? Email us.