Babyboo
Fashion Growth
Case Study

Ad Spend: $15k
ROAS: $195k

Results

Campaign Ads Results Proof

Enlarge account evidence

Project Overview

Australia
Women’s Fashion eCommerce

Babyboo Fashion is a rapidly growing fashion brand operating in a highly competitive market. The brand had already established product-market fit and a strong customer base, but paid advertising performance lacked the efficiency required to maximize growth and profitability.

The objective was to transform Meta Ads into a scalable revenue source capable of generating stronger returns while lowering acquisition costs and improving overall marketing performance.

Meta Ads Strategy
Account Audit
Campaign Restructuring
Conversion Optimization
Audience Testing
Creative Optimization

The Challenge

Despite consistent advertising activity, several performance limitations were restricting growth.

Disorganized product pages and slow website speed.
Broken links and inadequate content optimization.
ROAS performance remained inconsistent across campaigns.
Customer acquisition costs limited scaling opportunities.
The existing campaign structure lacked efficiency and structure.
Audience targeting and strategy required refinement.
Conversion rates needed improvement.
Advertising spend was not generating its full revenue potential.

Growth Strategy

To improve performance, the focus shifted from simply generating sales to maximizing profitability at every stage of the customer journey.

Comprehensive Meta Ads audit
Conversion-focused website improvements
Campaign restructuring
Budget optimization
Audience refinement
Performance monitoring and scaling
Creative testing framework

Execution

The strategy was executed through systematic testing, optimization, and continuous performance analysis.

Rebuilt campaign architecture to improve learning and delivery.
Refined audience segmentation and targeting.
Tested multiple creative concepts and messaging angles.
Optimized landing page experience to improve conversion rates.
Reallocated spend toward high-performing campaigns.
Implemented ongoing optimization processes to sustain growth.
Monitored key performance metrics to identify scaling opportunities.

Transformation

From Fragmented Marketing to a Unified Growth Strategy

Before

Inconsistent ROAS
Higher acquisition costs
Limited scaling opportunities
Underperforming audience segments
Untapped revenue potential

After

Visible revenue progress
Structured campaign architecture
Efficient budget distribution
Continuous creative optimization
Predictable and profitable growth

Results & Business Impact

The outcome was guided by a better performance plan, which drove better results and overall growth for the business.

REVENUE GENERATED: $211,000Generated from paid media
AD SPEND: $15,000Efficient capital deployment
ROAS: 14xHighest-performing campaign framework
CPC: $1.31Efficient traffic acquisition
COST PER RESULT: $11Strong conversion economics
CTR: +200%Through targeting and creative optimization

Why It Worked

The outcome was guided by a better performance plan, which drove better results and overall growth for the business.

Campaign restructuring
Audience refinement
Creative testing
Conversion optimization
Data-driven decision making
Budget allocation efficiency
Continuous performance monitoring
Strategic scaling methodology

Source context & original account evidence

Client-deck claims. Period, currency and attribution are unstated; return figures conflict within the deck.

Window not stated on the source deck

The supplied design’s figures are reproduced as provided. They may differ from the account screenshot. Business revenue and platform-attributed conversion value are separate measures.

Ad spend (cover badge): $15K: Ad spend as printed in the black badge on the deck cover, rounded there to $15K. The same figure is printed in full as $15,000 on page 7. The deck does not state the period over which it was spent, does not say which currency the dollar symbol denotes, and does not say whether it covers Meta only or all paid media.
Source: Client case study deck, page 1, cover badge
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
ROAS (cover badge, as labelled): $195K: Printed on the cover badge as "$15K Ad Spend -> $195K ROAS". The deck labels a dollar amount as ROAS, which is a category error: ROAS is a ratio, not a currency value. Read instead as a revenue figure, it does not reconcile with the $211,000 revenue card on page 7, and the deck prints no explanation of the gap. Reproduced here exactly as the deck states it rather than corrected.
Source: Client case study deck, page 1, cover badge
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
ROAS (before and after slide): 10.13x: The first bullet in the green AFTER column of the before and after slide. The deck gives no definition, no window and no attribution setting, and does not reconcile it with the 14x printed on the next page. It is also not the ratio of the two page 7 cards: $211,000 divided by $15,000 is 14.07.
Source: Client case study deck, page 6, AFTER column
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Revenue generated: $211,000: Revenue as printed on the deck, with the sub-caption "Generated from paid media". The deck does not say whether this is gross or net of refunds, whether it is total-business revenue or platform-attributed, or which currency the dollar symbol denotes. The market is given as Australia but the symbol printed is a plain $.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Ad spend: $15,000: Ad spend as printed on the deck, sub-captioned "Efficient capital deployment". The deck does not state the period over which it was spent or the currency. The body copy of the deck names Meta Ads and no other channel, which is the basis for reading it as Meta spend, but the deck itself does not say so.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
ROAS: 14x: ROAS as printed on the deck, sub-captioned "Highest-performing campaign framework". The deck gives no definition. It is consistent with dividing the $211,000 revenue card by the $15,000 spend card, which gives 14.07, but the deck does not say that is how it was derived, and it conflicts with the 10.13x printed on page 6.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
CPC: $1.31: Cost per click as printed on the deck, sub-captioned "Efficient traffic acquisition". The deck does not say whether this is all clicks or link clicks, which is a material difference on Meta, and gives no period and no currency.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Cost per result: $11: Printed as "Cost Per Result" with the sub-caption "Strong conversion economics". The deck never says what the result is. On Meta, a result takes the value of whatever the campaign was optimised for, so this could be a purchase, an add to cart or a landing page view. Without that, it is not comparable to a cost per purchase.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
CTR change: +200%: Printed as a 200% increase in click-through rate, sub-captioned "Through targeting and creative optimization". The deck gives neither the starting CTR nor the ending CTR, no comparison period, and no statement of whether this is all-placements CTR or link CTR. A percentage change with no baseline cannot be checked, so it is recorded here and not restated as a result.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7, results card
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.

How I report results ↗