CloudPaws
Growth
Case Study

Building brand from scratch with

Revenue: $350K

Results

Campaign Ads Results Proof

Enlarge account evidence

Project Overview

Australia, New Zealand, United States
Pet eCommerce

CloudPaws is an eCommerce pet brand created to serve modern pet owners with innovative products designed to improve everyday pet care.

The marketing objective was to build a complete customer acquisition flow that could take a brand from zero to sustainable revenue through data-driven marketing

Meta Ads
Google Ads
AI UGC Creative Strategy
Full Funnel Marketing
Performance Marketing
Conversion Optimization

The Challenge

Launching a new eCommerce brand is challenging. Every acquisition decision impacts profitability and growth.

No historical advertising data
No optimized acquisition funnel
Limited customer awareness
Need for rapid market validation
Efficient budget allocation
Building predictable revenue from zero

Growth Strategy

Rather than relying on isolated campaigns, I developed an omni-channel framework designed to guide customers through every stage of the buying journey. Every channel worked together as one connected growth system.

Phase 1: Acquire
Generating qualified traffic through Meta Ads and Google Ads.
Phase 2: Nurture
Building trust using AI-powered UGC creatives, remarketing, and customer engagement.
Phase 3: Convert & Retain
Optimizing conversion rates while increasing repeat purchases and customer lifetime value.

Execution

The strategy was implemented through structured experimentation, continuous optimization, and full-funnel marketing.

Built complete Meta Ads infrastructure
Launched Google Ads acquisition campaigns
Produced AI-generated UGC creatives
Developed full-funnel customer journeys
Implemented audience testing frameworks
Optimized campaign budgets
Improved conversion tracking
Monitored ROAS and performance metrics

Transformation

From Fragmented Marketing to a Unified Growth Strategy

Before

Brand launching from zero
No customer acquisition system
No campaign history
No campaign history
No optimized funnel

After

Scalable omni-channel growth
Predictable acquisition framework
High-performing Meta & Google Ads
Customer segmentation
AI-optimized creative structure

Results & Business Impact

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

Total Revenue Generated:: $350K+
Meta Ads Revenue Generated:: $250K+
Google Ads Revenue Generated:: $100K+

Why It Worked

Growth came from building a complete customer acquisition scheme where every marketing activity supported the next stage of the customer journey.

Omni-channel strategy
Full-funnel marketing
AI UGC creatives
Meta & Google integration
Continuous optimization
Data-driven experimentation
Customer lifecycle marketing
Scalable acquisition systems

Source context & original account evidence

Meta-reported purchase value and spend. Source date range and attribution setting are unconfirmed.

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.

Total Revenue Generated: $350K+: Revenue as printed on the deck results page. The deck does not say whether this is gross or net of refunds, whether it is total-business revenue or platform-attributed revenue, or which currency the dollar sign refers to. The brand sells into Australia, New Zealand and the United States, so three different dollars are in play.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Meta Ads Revenue Generated: $250K+: Revenue the deck assigns to Meta Ads. No definition, time window or currency is given, and the deck does not say whether this is Meta-reported purchase conversion value or store revenue the client assigned to Meta. It is higher than the $241,908.85 total in the Ads Manager screenshot on page 9, and the deck offers no reconciliation between the two.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Google Ads Revenue Generated: $100K+: Revenue the deck assigns to Google Ads. No definition, time window, currency or source system is stated, and no Google Ads export appears anywhere in the deck. $250K+ and $100K+ add to the $350K+ total, but the deck never states that relationship.
Source: Client case study deck, page 7
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Amount spent (Total Spent): $77,436.59: Meta spend as printed in the totals row of the Ads Manager screenshot. It covers the campaigns loaded in that view only: the table is truncated both vertically and horizontally, so anything below the fold is not accounted for. The five live rows that are visible sum to $42,471.63, which I added up rather than read off the deck, so roughly 45 per cent of this total sits in rows nobody can see. Google spend appears nowhere in the deck.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Purchases conversion value (Total): $241,908.85: Meta-reported purchases conversion value, totals row of the Ads Manager screenshot. The column header is truncated in the screenshot as "Purchases conversion...". This is the only revenue figure in the deck backed by an export rather than by deck copy.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Purchase ROAS on the screenshot totals: 3.12x: Computed by me, not printed anywhere on the deck: $241,908.85 purchases conversion value divided by $77,436.59 amount spent, the two rows above, both read from the same totals row. No ROAS figure appears in the deck at all. This is platform-attributed return on Meta spend only. It is not MER, and total-business revenue over total marketing spend would be a different and lower number.
Source: Calculated from the two rows above
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Reach (Meta accounts): 987,962: Meta accounts reached, totals row of the Ads Manager screenshot. Accounts, not people, and not deduplicated against Google.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Frequency (Per Meta account): 2.78: Average impressions per Meta account reached, totals row of the same screenshot. Measured over whatever range the date selector was set to, which the deck does not state as a campaign window.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Results (Website purchases) on the highest-spend campaign row: 362: Website purchases on the single campaign row carrying the largest amount spent, $20,383.63. The campaign name is blurred in the screenshot, so this row cannot be tied to a market, a product or a funnel stage.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Cost per result (Per purchase), range across the live campaign rows: $43.34 to $110.26: The lowest and highest cost per website purchase printed on the five live campaign rows. Both ends are verbatim from the screenshot; presenting them as a range is my reading of those five rows, not a figure the deck states. The remaining three rows read $54.02, $56.31 and $63.28.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.
Reporting range shown in the date selector: Maximum: 21 May 2023 - 21 Jun 2026: The range the date picker happened to be set to in the screenshot. This is the account maximum offered by the interface, not a campaign window. The deck never states a start or an end date for the work, so this string is the only time framing in the file and it should not be read as one.
Source: Meta Ads Manager screenshot, deck page 9
Attribution: Not stated on the source deck.

How I report results ↗