📊 Headline: A clean recovery week. Blended revenue rose +39% WoW ($3,505 vs $2,522) and orders +40% (56 vs 40) on spend +16%. Blended ROAS improved 3.00x → 3.58x, CPA fell $21.01 → $17.48. The engine was Search Brand: orders 18 → 36 (+100%), revenue +123%, ROAS 3.89x → 6.54x. This confirms last week's read — the Jul 19 zero-order Saturday and the soft CVR were transient, not structural. No bids were changed to produce it.
This was a structural week — three campaigns were switched off: (1) NB PMax paused ~Jul 22 after the 4-week Bleeding-Rule window closed ($1,590 lifetime CDP spend → 7 CDP orders → ROAS 0.32). (2) HairMask Shopping paused, per last week's action item. (3) Demand Gen paused Jul 27 — but see the Demand Gen section: the advertorial funnel was measurably improving right up to the pause. That is the most important open decision this week.
| Metric | Jul 20–26 (A) | Jul 13–19 (B) | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gross Revenue (Shopify)* | $19,803 | $20,507 | -3% |
| Refunds | $0 | $0 | — |
| Net Revenue (Shopify)* | $19,803 | $20,507 | -3% |
| Orders (sample)* | 250 | 250 | — |
| AOV (Shopify) | $79.21 | $82.03 | -3% |
| CDP 1dc Revenue (paid G+B scope) | $3,505 | $2,522 | +39% |
⚠ *Shopify totals are capped at the first 250 orders/week (API pagination) — both weeks hit the cap, so use for AOV/direction only. Store-wide Shopify revenue was roughly flat (-3.4%) while paid CDP revenue rose +39%. Read: paid took a larger share of a stable store — the recovery is real paid performance, not a store-wide demand surge.
Scope: Google Search + Google Shopping + Bing Search (excludes Google NB PMax and Demand Gen — both have dedicated sections below — plus Bing Demand Gen and Facebook). PMax $159 / 0 CDP orders and Demand Gen $1,358 / 0 CDP orders are reported separately.
| Metric | Jul 20–26 (A) | Target | Jul 13–19 (B) | WoW | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue (CDP) | $3,505 | — | $2,522 | +39% | 🟢 Up +39% WoW |
| Orders (CDP) | 56 | — | 40 | +40% | 🟢 Up +40% WoW |
| ROAS (CDP) | 3.58x | ~2.6x | 3.00x | +19% | 🟢 Above floor, up WoW |
| Spend | $979 | — | $841 | +16% | 🟢 Scaled with revenue |
| CPA (CDP) | $17.48 | $22 | $21.01 | -17% | 🟢 Below target |
| AOV (CDP) | $62.60 | $57 | $63.04 | -1% | 🟢 Above target |
| CVR (CDP) | 5.01% | ~4.1% | 4.42% | +13% | 🟢 Above floor |
| CTR | 2.36% | 1.2% | 1.64% | +44% | 🟢 Above target |
| CPC | $0.88 | $1.20 | $0.93 | -6% | 🟢 Below target |
These blended trend charts include NB PMax (purple) and Demand Gen — Discovery (green) alongside Search/Shopping/Bing — switch to By Source to isolate each. Because both spent at near-zero recorded CDP ROAS, they pull the blended Total spend up and ROAS down versus the core-paid KPI cards above (which scope to Search + Shopping + Bing). Demand Gen appears from Jul 13–19 (launched Jul 17, paused Jul 27); PMax from Jun 22–28 (paused Jul 22).
IS held flat at 90.3% (vs 90.4% last week) while brand-search impressions jumped +39% (1,381 → 1,921) — the highest of the 7 weeks. Read: branded demand came back, and we captured it at unchanged visibility. That is exactly the mirror image of last week (impressions down, IS flat) and confirms the Search-Brand swing is demand-driven, not auction-driven. No bid action required.
| Campaign | A Spend | A Ord | A Rev | CPA A | B Spend | B Ord | B Rev | CPA B | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_CPC_Core | $304 | 31 | $2,163 | $9.80 | $232 | 14 | $899 | $16.61 | +121% ord · +141% rev |
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_Products | $67 | 5 | $304 | $13.44 | $46 | 4 | $205 | $11.56 | +25% ord · +48% rev |
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_Modifiers | $6 | 0 | $0 | — | $6 | 0 | $0 | — | 0 ord · 0 rev |
Combined Search Brand (CDP): 36 orders / $2,467 on $377 vs 18 / $1,105 last week. ROAS 3.89x → 6.54x, CPA $10.47 (target $13), AOV $68.53 (+12%). Both CVR and AOV recovered — the two things that broke last week.
Daily read (CDP orders, Jul 20–26): 8, 6, 4, 3, 3, 8, 4. No zero-order day this week — including Saturday Jul 25, which posted the week's best day (8 orders / $591). That is the cleanest possible evidence that the Jul 19 zero-order Saturday was a tracking artifact rather than lost demand, and it means part of last week's reported −40% was never real.
CPC_Core (do not touch): 31 orders / $2,163 at CPA $9.80, ROAS 7.12x. Platform IS 95.3% (4.7% lost to rank, 0% to budget) — brand defense intact at higher volume. Hold bids.
Products: 5 orders / $304, ROAS 4.52x at IS 75.3% with 24.7% lost to rank — the clearest remaining scale lever in the account now that PMax and DGEN are off. These are QS-10 brand-product terms on Manual CPC, so a measured bid-up applies directly. Modifiers: 0 orders on $6 again — chronic; consolidate into CPC_Core.
| Campaign | A Spend | A Ord | A Rev | CPA A | B Spend | B Ord | B Rev | CPA B | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR_US_NB_SpaDr_Reviews | $218 | 3 | $120 | $72.56 | $130 | 4 | $154 | $32.51 | -25% ord · -22% rev |
SR_US_NB_SpaDr_Reviews (CDP): 3 orders / $120 on $218 — spend +67% while orders fell 4 → 3 and revenue −22%. ROAS 1.18 → 0.55x, CVR 5.80% → 2.86%. CPA $72.56 is still inside the $90 target, so this is not yet Critical Waste — but the direction is wrong and it is now the account's only non-brand engine.
Why it matters more this week: with NB PMax and Demand Gen both paused, Reviews carries 100% of non-brand acquisition. It runs Target CPA on a $140/day budget at IS 74.3% (25.7% lost to rank, 0% to budget) — rank-limited, not budget-limited. Do not scale it while CVR is falling; fix the landing-page routing first (the reviews cluster lands on /pages/reviews rather than the product page), then re-test.
| Campaign | A Spend | A Ord | A Rev | CPA A | B Spend | B Ord | B Rev | CPA B | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SHP_TSD_US_PPT_ACQ_VOLUME_CBO_WK45 | $238 | 12 | $650 | $19.86 | $187 | 11 | $537 | $17.01 | +9% ord · +21% rev |
| SHP_TSD_US_BR_HairMask_NightCream_PURCHASE PAUSED | $60 | 1 | $36 | $59.72 | $152 | 2 | $276 | $76.14 | -50% ord · -87% rev |
Segment (CDP): 13 orders / $686 on $298, ROAS 2.30x (vs 2.39x). Orders were flat and revenue −16% — but the composition changed completely.
1) SHP_TSD_US_PPT_ACQ_VOLUME_CBO_WK45 (do not touch) improved: 12 orders / $650 at ROAS 2.73x and CPA $19.86 — up from 11 orders / $537. On its own it is running at roughly the segment's historical ~2.7x.
2) SHP_TSD_US_BR_HairMask_NightCream_PURCHASE — now PAUSED. It spent $60 for 1 order before being switched off, after $152 / 2 orders (CPA $76) the week before. This closes last week's action item. Its removal is why segment revenue reads down while the campaign that matters went up — a quality-of-spend improvement, not a performance loss.
⚠ Bing metrics are pulled from CDP (Redash q2635, source_category = Bing Search) on the same Mon–Sun weeks as Google. Bing Demand Gen / Audience is currently inactive ($0) and is excluded.
| Campaign | A Spend | A Ord | A Rev | CPA A | B Spend | B Ord | B Rev | CPA B | WoW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_CPC_Core | $58 | 2 | $169 | $28.98 | $75 | 5 | $451 | $15.03 | -60% ord · -63% rev |
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_Products | $17 | 1 | $36 | $17.41 | $6 | 0 | $0 | — | new · new |
| SR_US_BR_SpaDr_Modifiers | $11 | 1 | $27 | $10.86 | $6 | 0 | $0 | — | new · new |
Segment (CDP): 4 orders / $232 on $86, ROAS 2.69x, CPA $21.55. The revenue drop (−48%) is almost entirely AOV: $90.12 → $58.03. Orders only moved 5 → 4.
Read carefully before acting: at 4–5 orders/week a single high-value basket swings ROAS by 2x. Last week CPC_Core alone posted a $90 AOV; this week the orders spread across all three campaigns (Products and Modifiers each converted 1, after 0 last week) at lower ticket. Spend was flat ($87 → $86), CPA $21.55 is still far inside the $13–$22 brand range on a blended basis. No bid or budget change — this is variance, not decay. Revisit if ROAS stays under 3x for two more weeks.
DGEN_US_NB_TSD_HairSerum_Discovery · ID 24044975032 · launched Jul 17 · PAUSED Jul 27, 2026 · Target CPA (tCPA $130) · $200/day · advertorial funnel → offer.thespadr.com. Discovery-surface only (the "Discover arbitrage" play — click-billed, VTC optimization OFF). Business metrics = CDP (source_category = Google Discovery); delivery = Google Ads platform; on-site funnel = Tableau LP-path analysis. All charts in this section are per-day — the campaign has only ~10 days of life, and the story is entirely in the day-over-day trajectory.
On Jul 22 we concentrated the campaign on AG1_InMarket_HairCare and paused AG2_Affinity_CleanBeauty (the broad affinity audience that had been buying most of the volume). Three things moved immediately and together from that day forward:
That is a clean, directionally correct optimization result: we bought better traffic, it engaged the advertorial more, and for the first time it started reaching checkout.
Source: Tableau LP-path analysis (user-path based), Jul 17–26. CTR LP1 = users whose path contains LP2 or who initiated checkout ÷ all users. CTR LP2 = users whose path contains LP2 and (path contains LP3 or checkout started) ÷ users whose path contains LP2. CTR LP3 has no recorded data in the period and is omitted. The dashed line marks Jul 22, the day the ad-group/audience change took effect.
| Date | CTR LP1 (advertorial → offer) | CTR LP2 (offer → checkout) | CTR LP3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-17 | 0.00% | — | — |
| 2026-07-18 | 9.25% | 0.00% | — |
| 2026-07-19 | 5.35% | 0.00% | — |
| 2026-07-20 | 6.95% | 0.00% | — |
| 2026-07-21 | 6.65% | 0.00% | — |
| 2026-07-22 | 14.55% | 3.25% | — |
| 2026-07-23 | 14.45% | 1.70% | — |
| 2026-07-24 | 17.00% | 1.20% | — |
| 2026-07-25 | 14.70% | 1.75% | — |
| 2026-07-26 | 17.30% | 2.85% | — |
Green rows = after the Jul 22 optimization.
The trajectory was right. The level was not yet viable. Applying the measured LP1/LP2 rates to the real daily click volume, Week A delivered roughly 453 users onto the offer page and about 8 checkout starts across the whole week. Even assuming a generous 40% checkout→purchase rate, that is ~3 orders on $1,358 of spend — an implied CPA around $410 against a $130 tCPA target.
So both statements are true at once, and the report should not collapse them: the optimizations produced a real, measurable improvement (LP1 5.6% → 15.6%, LP2 0.0% → 2.1%), and the funnel was still an order of magnitude away from paying for $200/day of Discovery clicks at the moment it was paused. The gap was closing, not closed.
The measurement problem is still open — and it is now the deciding question. CDP records 0 orders, 0 ATC, 0 initiate-checkout for this campaign all week, while the Tableau path data shows ~8 checkout starts. Those cannot both be right. Either CDP is not attributing offer.thespadr.com events to Google Discovery (the tracking gap flagged at build), or the path data is counting sessions the CDP never sees. Until that is reconciled, we do not actually know this campaign's true CPA — we only know its upper bound is bad and its trend was good.
The arbitrage mechanics improved steadily: after Jul 22 the campaign bought more clicks, cheaper, at a higher CTR — CPC $0.46 → $0.38 while CTR ran 6.1% → 10.7%. Spend stayed pinned at the $200/day cap throughout, so this is a pure efficiency gain, not a budget effect.
| Date | Impr | Clicks | CTR | Avg CPC | Spend | Orders (CDP) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-17 | 12,598 | 56 | 0.44% | $1.71 | $96 | 0 |
| 2026-07-18 | 9,494 | 600 | 6.32% | $0.79 | $473 | 0 |
| 2026-07-19 | 6,238 | 340 | 5.45% | $0.65 | $223 | 0 |
| 2026-07-20 | 7,943 | 503 | 6.33% | $0.40 | $202 | 0 |
| 2026-07-21 | 7,148 | 433 | 6.06% | $0.46 | $199 | 0 |
| 2026-07-22 | 5,007 | 470 | 9.39% | $0.41 | $195 | 0 |
| 2026-07-23 | 4,868 | 497 | 10.21% | $0.38 | $189 | 0 |
| 2026-07-24 | 4,772 | 511 | 10.71% | $0.37 | $188 | 0 |
| 2026-07-25 | 4,943 | 511 | 10.34% | $0.38 | $193 | 0 |
| 2026-07-26 | 4,718 | 505 | 10.70% | $0.38 | $193 | 0 |
Green rows = after the Jul 22 optimization. Jul 17–19 fall in Week B; Jul 20–26 are Week A.
| Ad Group | Status | Impr | Clicks | CTR | Cost | Plat Conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AG1_InMarket_HairCare | ENABLED | 24,558 | 2,537 | 10.33% | $972 | 14 |
| AG2_Affinity_CleanBeauty | PAUSED | 14,397 | 885 | 6.15% | $381 | 4 |
| AG3_CustomIntent_ThickerHair | ENABLED | 444 | 8 | 1.80% | $5 | 0 |
| AG6_RiskLane | REMOVED | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | $0 | 0 |
AG1_InMarket_HairCare is now the campaign — 2,537 clicks on $972 (72% of spend), at CTR 10.3% — versus AG2_Affinity_CleanBeauty at 6.1% before it was paused. In-market intent beat broad affinity on both click efficiency and, critically, on what happened after the click. AG3_CustomIntent_ThickerHair still barely serves (444 impressions, $5.32) — its custom-intent signal is too narrow to be eligible; it has never been a real test. AG6_RiskLane remains REMOVED per the build plan.
| Format | Impr | Clicks | CTR | Cost | Plat Conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-asset (image) | 39,399 | 3,430 | 8.71% | $1,358 | 18 |
| Video responsive | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | $0 | 0 |
The video responsive ads served zero impressions this week — the campaign ran entirely on multi-asset image ads at CTR 8.71%. Last week's recommendation to trim video is effectively already implemented by delivery. For a click-billed Discovery arbitrage, that is the correct state.
Comparación pedida por Juanma contra YT_US_DG_GMAIL_10210_EBRA_PPT_25W48_BROAD_IMG_META_TEST (Shapermint USA, acct 1037305439, Demand Gen, tCPA, $1,800/día). Solo métricas promedio — son campañas con presupuesto, marca y objetivo distintos, así que los volúmenes NO son comparables y no se muestran como resultado. Misma ventana (Jul 20–26) para ambas.
La comparación es válida en la mecánica de entrega: ambas corren prácticamente 100% en Discover (99% TSD · 100% SHM), o sea compiten en la misma subasta y el mismo formato (imagen). Escala: TSD $1,358 vs SHM $12,661 en la semana (~9.3x).
| Métrica promedio | TSD · Discovery | SHM · DG Gmail | Δ TSD vs SHM | Lectura |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPM — precio del alcance | $34.47 | $29.71 | +16% | TSD paga la subasta más cara |
| CTR — resonancia del creativo | 8.71% | 4.86% | +79% | TSD casi duplica a SHM |
| CPC — costo del click | $0.40 | $0.61 | -35% | TSD compra el click más barato |
| CVR plataforma — click → conv. | 0.53% | 1.12% | -53% | ⚠ solo direccional — ver nota |
Plataforma Google Ads, Jul 20–26. CPM/CTR/CPC son promedios puros y no dependen del presupuesto. La fila de CVR NO es comparable como negocio: cada campaña optimiza a acciones de conversión distintas (SHM = compra en su propio funnel; TSD = tCPA sobre el funnel advertorial) y, además, el CDP de TSD marca 0 órdenes esta semana — o sea su CVR real no está medida. Se incluye únicamente para mostrar dónde está la diferencia.
| Métrica promedio | TSD · Discovery | SHM · DG Gmail | Δ TSD vs SHM |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPM | $39.41 | $28.99 | +36% |
| CTR | 10.26% | 4.90% | +109% |
| CPC | $0.38 | $0.59 | -35% |
| CVR plataforma | 0.48% | 1.02% | -53% |
Aislando los días posteriores al cambio de audiencia del Jul 22, la brecha de CTR se ensancha: TSD llega a 10.26% vs 4.90% de SHM.
El arbitraje de Discover funcionó mejor en TSD que en SHM. TSD paga un CPM 16% más caro, pero convierte ese alcance en clicks a casi el doble de eficiencia (8.71% vs 4.86%), y el resultado neto es un click 35% más barato ($0.40 vs $0.61). Esa es exactamente la mecánica que buscábamos: en un modelo cobrado por click, un CTR alto compra impresiones gratis. El creativo editorial/advertorial de TSD está rindiendo por encima del benchmark de una cuenta mucho más grande y madura.
La diferencia real no está en el medio, está en el destino. SHM convierte el click a 1.12% y TSD a 0.53% (plataforma). Con SHM el click aterriza en un funnel de producto ya optimizado y con años de señal; con TSD aterriza en un advertorial nuevo, en un host nuevo, cuyo paso a checkout apenas empezó a registrar (2.1% LP2). Dicho de otra forma: el problema de TSD nunca fue el costo del tráfico — fue qué pasa después del click, que es la misma conclusión a la que llegan los datos de LP1/LP2 arriba.
Por qué SHM consigue un CPM más barato: corre ~9.3x el gasto diario ($1.800 vs $200) sobre una cuenta con mucho más histórico de conversión en Discover. Más volumen y más señal = mejor precio de subasta y un tCPA con datos para optimizar. No es una ventaja de creativo, es de escala y madurez — por eso el CPM no debería leerse como "SHM lo hace mejor".
offer.thespadr.com events resolve to Google Discovery in CDP, every ROAS/CPA number for this play is unmeasurable — and we will make the same blind decision again next time.PMAX_US_NB_TSD_Serum_HairSerum · ID 23967212829 · launched Jun 30 · PAUSED ~Jul 22, 2026 · Maximize Conversion Value (no tROAS floor was ever set) · $60/day. Last delivery Jul 22. Business metrics = CDP (source_category = Google Max); delivery = Google Ads platform. This section closes the keep/kill question opened last week.
CDP (source_category = Google Max). PMax ran Jun 27 – Jul 22; earlier and later weeks are zero. Orders/ROAS are the real CDP numbers (platform all-conversions overcount badly — see below).
| Network | Cost | Clicks | Conv (plat) | Conv Value | Plat ROAS | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | WoW | A | B | A | B | A | B | A vs B | WoW | |
| Discover | $112 | $283 | -60% | 307 | 739 | 3 | 4 | $200 | $201 | 1.79 vs 0.71 | +151% |
| Search | $19 | $75 | -75% | 2 | 16 | 0 | 2 | $0 | $145 | 0.00 vs 1.93 | -100% |
| YouTube | $29 | $51 | -43% | 12 | 64 | 0 | 1 | $0 | $29 | 0.00 vs 0.57 | -100% |
| Search Partners | $0 | $0 | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $0 | $0 | 0.00 vs 0.00 | — |
| Total (platform) | $160 | $410 | -61% | 321 | 819 | 3 | 7 | $200 | $376 | 1.25 vs 0.92 | +36% |
Week A covers only Jul 20–22 (3 days) before the pause, so absolute values are not comparable to Week B's 7 days — read the mix, not the totals. Conversions/value are platform (per-network CDP isn't available); CDP recorded 0 orders in Week A.
Discover consumed 70% of the final week's spend ($112 of $160) and, across the campaign's life, was consistently where the money went and the sales did not follow. Search — the one network with any conversion consistency — was squeezed to $19 on 2 clicks in the final days.
The structural cause was never fixed: the campaign ran uncapped Maximize Conversion Value with no tROAS floor for its entire life. With no efficiency constraint, Google optimized toward the cheapest available inventory (Discover at ~$0.38 CPC), which converted at a fraction of Search. The lesson to carry forward: never launch a PMax NB test without a tROAS floor, even a deliberately loose one — it is the only lever that keeps a mixed-network campaign honest.
Platform measurement was actively misleading here. Platform reported 378 "all conversions" in the final 3 days against 0 real CDP orders — the gap is Product-View / ATC / list-view micro-events. Anyone reading the Google Ads UI would have concluded this campaign was working. CDP was the only source that told the truth.
| Asset Group | Status | Ad Strength | Impr | Clicks | Cost | Avg CPC | Conv |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| … - Hair Serum | ENABLED | AVERAGE | 4,968 | 321 | $160 | $0.50 | 3 |
| … - Serum | PAUSED | AVERAGE | 36 | 0 | $0 | — | 0 |
Both asset groups finished at AVERAGE ad strength — never upgraded to GOOD/STRONG despite being flagged for three consecutive weeks. If this campaign is ever rebuilt, fix assets before spending: more headlines, long headlines, and image/video variety are free relevance, and an AVERAGE asset group handicaps every network it serves on.
| Date | Impr | Clicks | Spend | Conv (plat) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-07-09 | 1,312 | 65 | $98 | 2 |
| 2026-07-10 | 1,426 | 124 | $62 | 0 |
| 2026-07-11 | 1,435 | 98 | $61 | 2 |
| 2026-07-12 | 1,684 | 113 | $66 | 0 |
| 2026-07-13 | 1,230 | 60 | $40 | 4 |
| 2026-07-14 | 2,151 | 155 | $64 | 1 |
| 2026-07-15 | 1,220 | 79 | $61 | 0 |
| 2026-07-16 | 2,336 | 175 | $64 | 1 |
| 2026-07-17 | 2,121 | 143 | $57 | 1 |
| 2026-07-18 | 1,360 | 84 | $65 | 0 |
| 2026-07-19 | 2,430 | 123 | $59 | 0 |
| 2026-07-20 | 1,195 | 62 | $57 | 0 |
| 2026-07-21 | 1,895 | 122 | $53 | 3 |
| 2026-07-22 | 1,914 | 137 | $50 | 0 |
Delivery stops after Jul 22 — the pause date.
Search Brand is back to being the engine — 39% of spend returning 70% of revenue at ROAS 6.54x, versus 34% / 44% last week. Shopping Brand takes 30% of spend for 20% of revenue (ROAS 2.30x). Bing is 9% of spend for 7% of revenue — still efficient at 2.69x despite the soft AOV week. Search NB is the mix problem: 22% of spend for only 3% of revenue.
Excluded from the donuts: Google NB PMax ($159 / $0 CDP revenue — paused, own section), Google Demand Gen ($1,358 / $0 recorded CDP revenue — paused, own section), Bing Demand Gen ($0), and Shopping Non-Brand (deprecated). Efficiency ranking by ROAS: Search Brand 6.54x → Bing SB 2.69x → Shopping Brand 2.30x → Search NB 0.55x.
Per-competitor domains require Standard API access (UI only). Below is campaign-level IS with WoW trend and where the loss goes (rank vs budget) — the actionable cut.
| Campaign | A IS | B IS | WoW | Lost Rank | Lost Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CPC_Core (Brand) | 95.3% | 94.4% | +0.9pp | 4.7% | 0.0% |
| Products (Brand) | 75.3% | 77.9% | -2.6pp | 24.7% | 0.0% |
| Modifiers (Brand) | 96.0% | 88.0% | +8.0pp | 4.0% | 0.0% |
| NB Reviews | 74.3% | 70.5% | +3.8pp | 25.7% | 0.0% |
| Campaign | A IS | B IS | WoW | Lost Rank | Lost Budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPT Brand (Shopping) | 27.1% | 28.5% | -1.4pp | 72.9% | 0.0% |
| HairMask (Shopping Brand) — now PAUSED | 10.0% | 16.1% | -6.1pp | 8.3% | 85.9% |
Brand defense strengthened while volume grew — CPC_Core IS rose to 95.3% (from 94.4%) even as impressions jumped +39%. Holding share on a rising auction is the strongest possible signal that no bid change is needed.
Products is the live scale lever: IS 75.3% with 24.7% lost to rank and 0% to budget, on QS-10 brand-product terms under Manual CPC at ROAS 4.52x. With PMax and Demand Gen both off, this is the cleanest place to redeploy budget. NB Reviews at 74.3% IS is also rank-limited, but its CVR is falling — fix the LP routing before buying more of it.
| Channel | A Spend | A Ord | A Rev | ROAS A | B Spend | ROAS B | WoW Spend | WoW Rev |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Google Search (Brand+NB) | $595 | 39 | $2,587 | 4.35x | $414 | 3.04x | +44% | +106% |
| Google Shopping (Brand) | $298 | 13 | $686 | 2.30x | $339 | 2.39x | -12% | -16% |
| Bing Search (Brand) | $86 | 4 | $232 | 2.69x | $87 | 5.19x | -1% | -48% |
| Google NB PMax (paused Jul 22) | $159 | 0 | $0 | 0.00x | $410 | 0.17x | -61% | -100% |
| Google Demand Gen (paused Jul 27) | $1,358 | 0 | $0 | 0.00x | $791 | 0.00x | +72% | — |
| Total (excl PMax + Demand Gen) | $979 | 56 | $3,505 | 3.58x | $841 | 3.00x | +16% | +39% |
Google Search carried the week — $2,587 revenue on $595 (ROAS 4.35x vs 3.04x). Shopping held at 2.30x on less spend. Bing softened on AOV but stayed profitable. The two experimental non-brand engines are both off: PMax spent $159 for 0 orders before pausing Jul 22, and Demand Gen spent $1,358 for 0 recorded orders before pausing Jul 27. Together they consumed $1,518 this week — 61% of all paid spend — for no recorded revenue. Removing them is the single biggest efficiency change in the account this month.