Vitalii Kurmaz / Case studies / Google & Meta Ads
Book a call
Google AdsMeta AdsPerformance MaxFashion · US

Google & Meta Ads for a US leather fashion brand: 800% ROAS against a 500% target

A seasonal leather apparel store with a catalogue of 10,000+ products, no live Google campaigns and a single broad Meta campaign. I rebuilt Google Ads from zero around product types, restructured Meta around catalog and remarketing, and made each platform responsible for a different stage of the purchase.

Channels Google Ads (PMax, Shopping, Search, Demand Gen), Meta AdsMarket USAManaged since October 2025
Google Ads ROAS
800%
target 500%
Google cost per purchase
$37.87
average over the period
Meta Ads ROAS
+55%
464% → 720%
Meta cost per purchase
−38%
$102 → $63
Summary

The short version

  • Google Ads was rebuilt from scratch and reached 800% ROAS against a 500% target, at an average cost per purchase of $37.87.
  • On Meta, cost per purchase fell 38% ($102 → $63) and ROAS rose 55% (464% → 720%) after the restructure.
  • Main levers: campaigns split by product type, Performance Max + Shopping as the Google core, dedicated Meta catalog campaigns and remarketing to the brand’s large Instagram audience.
01Context

The client and the challenge

A US e-commerce brand selling leather apparel, with a six-figure Instagram following and a large catalogue of 10,000+ products. Sales peak from September; April to August is much quieter. I took over paid media in October 2025, just as the season was starting.

Client goals

Grow online sales across Google and Meta at 500%+ ROAS, and keep cost per order under control after the peak, not only during it.

The challenge

Nothing to scale on Google, one catch-all campaign on Meta, and a catalogue of 10,000+ products where paid traffic had to land on exactly the right item to convert.

02Diagnosis

Starting point

0

No live Google campaigns. Every campaign was paused. Earlier activity covered only short periods in 2021 and 2024.

30+

Ads in one broad Meta campaign. No separation between prospecting, catalog, creative tests and remarketing, so it was hard to tell what drove purchases.

$102

Meta cost per purchase at 464% ROAS: profitable, but too expensive to scale.

10,000+

A very large catalogue. Over 10,000 products. Broad campaigns sent people to the wrong part of it, so ads had to land each visitor directly on a relevant product.

03Execution

What was done, and why

The season had already started, so the priority was a structure that could scale right away without letting cost per order run away.

OCT 2025
Google Ads rebuilt from zero, split by product type

Search for high-intent queries, Performance Max and Shopping for product sales, Demand Gen for remarketing. Each product type got its own campaigns, so winners could scale without competing with weaker lines for budget.

Budget controlled per product type
OCT 2025
Meta restructured by campaign role

The 30+ ad broad campaign was replaced with separate prospecting, catalog, creative testing and remarketing campaigns. Budget followed each campaign’s results, not the ad count.

PEAK SEASON
Performance Max + Shopping became the Google core

Google remarketing underperformed product-led acquisition, so budget moved into PMax and Shopping instead of being forced into remarketing.

Main source of Google revenue
IN SEASON
Shopping feed titles rewritten and tested

Product titles were tested against how people actually search for leather items, instead of reusing the website names. The winning format gave a clear lift in Shopping performance and was rolled out across the whole feed.

Strong result, rolled out across the feed
IN SEASON
Dedicated catalog campaigns on Meta

Tested against catalog expansion inside standard ads, dedicated catalog campaigns performed better and more consistently, so they got more budget. With a catalogue this size, they were also easy to scale as new products were added.

ONGOING
Instagram audience turned into a paid asset

Remarketing audiences built from brand engagement were used to launch new products, collections and seasonal items to people who already knew the brand.

Before → after

Google Ads
BeforeAll campaigns paused
AfterSearch, PMax, Shopping, Demand Gen, split by product type
Meta structure
Before1 broad campaign, 30+ ads
AfterProspecting, catalog, creative tests, remarketing
Meta catalog
BeforeCatalog expansion in standard ads
AfterDedicated catalog campaigns
Shopping feed
BeforeWebsite product names
AfterTitles tested for search intent
04Results

Both channels above target

Google was measured against the 500% ROAS target, and Meta against its own results before the restructure.

ROAS: starting point vs result

Google Ads: target vs achieved. Meta Ads: before vs after the restructure.

Target / beforeResult
$102 → $63
Meta cost per purchase
−38%
cheaper purchases on Meta
+55%
Meta ROAS, 464% → 720%
05Honest part

What didn’t go to plan

Google remarketing

Demand Gen remarketing returned less than product-led PMax and Shopping. Budget was moved rather than pushed harder.

The off-season is still the off-season

After the peak, ROAS came down from its seasonal high and cost per order rose. The aim in those months is controlled cost, not peak-season returns.

06Takeaways

Key takeaways for e-commerce brands

  1. Give Google and Meta different jobs. Google captures existing demand; Meta drives discovery, catalog sales and re-engagement.
  2. Your social audience is a paid asset. A large following makes new collections cheaper to launch through remarketing.

Running ads for a seasonal e-commerce brand?

If your costs climb every time the season turns, or Google and Meta keep claiming the same sales, I’m happy to look at your accounts and tell you what I’d change first.

Free and with no obligation: with read-only access I review your account before the call and bring the main changes I would make first.