What happened in this case study?
An organic superfoods and supplements brand set a 20% ACOS ceiling for a wide, uneven catalog. Eleviam rebuilt Sponsored Products and Sponsored Brands across every SKU, and over the campaign period the account averaged 18.87% ACOS, under the ceiling, with a 5.30× ROAS on more than 24 million ad impressions.
Why is the ceiling the story?
Plenty of accounts can scale spend. Fewer can scale it across a wide, uneven catalog without blended efficiency drifting past the line finance actually cares about.
What was the constraint?
You cannot optimize what you cannot see.
Sponsored Products campaigns bundled dissimilar SKUs together, with weak keyword segmentation and inconsistent negative keyword hygiene across the catalog. Very different product types sat in the same catch all structures, so it was impossible to tell which products were actually driving efficient sales.
Search term coverage was thin outside a few core products, sales had plateaued despite steady spend, and ACOS was running well above the brand’s own target as a result.
What did Eleviam do?
Three connected moves, all aimed at making a large, varied product line as efficient to advertise as a single hero SKU.
- SKU level restructure. Every Sponsored Products campaign was broken out of bundled structures into SKU and category level groups, each with its own exact, phrase and broad match layers.
- Catalog wide negative keyword harvesting. Continuous harvesting across every campaign removed spend on search terms that did not convert, and budgets were rebalanced weekly toward the SKUs and terms already converting under the 20% ceiling.
- Sponsored Brands for discovery and cross sell. Headline ads and Brand Store placements built category level visibility on high intent superfood terms and drove shoppers into the Brand Store, where the breadth of the catalog encouraged cross shopping.
What were the results?
How this was measured. These are averages across the campaign period, taken from Amazon Advertising, not a before and after comparison. The figures are specific to this brand and time period. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
What did separating the catalog reveal?
Making a large, varied product line efficient to advertise is a structural problem before it is a bidding problem. Separate the products, and the data tells you where the money is.
- A small set of hero SKUs carried the efficiency. A few core products drove a disproportionate share of efficient conversions once they were separated from lower velocity products. Inside the bundled structures, that was invisible.
- Hero SKUs could then be pushed harder. With dedicated budget and bids, they could take aggressive spend without dragging blended ACOS up across the account.
- Sponsored Brands drove larger baskets. Traffic into the Brand Store consistently produced bigger orders as shoppers added complementary products from the same catalog.
If you sell a wide catalog and your reporting cannot tell you which SKUs are efficient, you are not running an advertising program, you are running an average. The restructure is what turns the average back into decisions.
What would this look like for your brand?
If you carry dozens of SKUs and your ACOS is a single blended number, there is almost certainly a hero set subsidizing a long tail.
We underwrite the channel and tell you what it is worth before you commit to anything. Start with a free Amazon brand teardown, or read how Eleviam approaches Amazon TACoS reduction and Amazon growth for established CPG brands.