Results, with the spend attached
Anyone can quote a return. Where we have the full detail, the case study names the source of every figure and the period it covers.
Acquisition across two platforms reported as one budget, judged against attributed revenue rather than the platform's own number.
View case study →Lifeway Foods$47,000+ad spend optimisedacross Search, Display, Video and Demand GenFour campaign types sharing one budget, each given a defined role so the blended numbers stopped hiding which one was working.
View case study →Street Saver2.76×average purchase ROASand Rs 754,364 in store salesEight campaigns returning between 1.76x and 6.42x. The work was finding where the return actually came from.
View case study →Sustained scaling on Meta, held at a stable return as purchase value accumulated.
A restructure that raised conversion volume and cut acquisition cost at the same time.
Creative testing across two product lines in a crowded category.
Scaling a proven angle while holding return steady rather than trading it for volume.
Performance dashboards and attribution wired so optimisation decisions ran on reconciled data.
Cards without a link are projects where we hold the headline figure but not the full write-up. Rather than pad them into a case study, they are listed as what they are.
Why the sources are named
Platform-reported figures and attributed revenue rarely agree. On one of the accounts above the gap ran to six figures across three months. An agency that quotes only the platform number is quoting the flattering one.
So each detailed case study states where the figure came from and over what period, and where two systems disagree we show both.