The real question: where is the budget going — and where is the value being created?
The problem wasn't a lack of marketing activity. Quite the opposite: the client was simultaneously running Google Ads, Meta, Pinterest, direct traffic and email. The problem was that there was no consolidated view of which channel was contributing what — and without that clarity, no meaningful decision could be made about where to invest more.
The webshop sells works by Hungarian fine artists in a B2C ecommerce model, on-demand. Demand is largely name-driven — buyers typically search for a specific artist they already know. Average order value has a natural ceiling, the purchase decision is personal and emotional, and every forint of spend has to come back as measurable revenue. In this model, the question isn't volume — it's return per channel.
The goal of the audit wasn't to fix campaign settings — it was to make visible, in one session, which of the 5 channels was performing well, which was wasting budget, and which held untapped potential.
The audit: one session, complete picture
November's data was sufficient to build a full channel view. Looking at revenue, direct spend and ROAS side by side for every channel made it immediately clear that the marketing mix was performing very unevenly.
| Channel | Revenue | Direct spend | ROAS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads | ~HUF 1.5M | ~HUF 180K | ~8x |
| Meta (Facebook/Instagram) | ~HUF 1.25M | ~HUF 850K | ~1.5x |
| Direct / Organic | ~HUF 1.2M | — | ∞ |
| Newsletter | ~HUF 145K | — | ∞ |
| ~HUF 40K | ~HUF 200K | ~0.2x |
The data spoke for itself. Google Ads was delivering by far the strongest returns — and this wasn't accidental. Within the Search campaign, the artist name-targeted ad group was showing a ~40% conversion rate. That single insight shaped every recommendation that followed.
~HUF 180K in spend generated ~HUF 1.5M in revenue. This isn't coincidentally strong — it reflects the Search campaign targeting specific artist names, where the buyer already knows what they're looking for. Hence the ~40% conversion rate. Scaling this campaign isn't a risk — it's the logical next step.
Three channels — three completely different situations
Google Ads Search: the only channel worth scaling
The ~8x ROAS and ~40% conversion rate on the artist name campaign made it clear: this audience arrives ready to buy. The recommendation was straightforward — increase the Search campaign budget, particularly within the artist name keyword groups that were already structurally proven.
Pinterest: HUF 205K spent, HUF 41K returned
Pinterest delivered the worst performance of any paid channel — spending five times more than it returned at ~0.2x ROAS. The recommendation was to reduce or pause it immediately, and reallocate the freed budget to Google Search where returns were already demonstrated.
Direct + Newsletter: ~30% of total revenue at zero direct spend
Direct and newsletter channels combined for nearly HUF 1.3M in revenue with no direct ad spend attached. This is proof of an existing audience with demonstrated purchase intent. The recommendation was to develop this actively: introduce email automation with sequences timed to the purchase cycle to keep the existing list engaged and converting.
Decision lessons: what the data made clear
The decision the client made — and why it was the right one
After the audit, the client decided to pause paid marketing activity for the time being. This wasn't a surprise — and it wasn't the wrong decision.
The most important value an audit delivers isn't always a starting signal. Sometimes it's the clarity to make a grounded decision: continue, stop, or restructure. The data showed that Google Ads Search was valuable and scalable — but scaling requires time, capacity and commitment. When those aren't available in a given moment, pausing is a better decision than continuing blindly.
If you're running marketing across multiple channels but don't have a clear view of what's actually driving value — I'm happy to work through a similar channel audit with you. Get in touch →