A toy brand with 500 ASINs and $2M in annual net profit was spending heavily on advertising — but the structure was wrong. High CPCs on the wrong keywords, campaigns built without logic, and budget flowing to products that couldn’t justify the spend. Revenue was moving, but profit was being quietly eroded.
The goal was not to cut spend. It was to make spend work harder. Over 12 months, a full restructure of campaign architecture and product prioritisation added $1M in net profit — a 45% YOY increase — while revenue grew alongside it.
We approached a 500-ASIN catalog the same way we approach any portfolio problem — with segmentation, prioritisation, and ruthless budget discipline.
500 ASINs were categorised into performance tiers — best sellers, growth candidates, low performers, and clearance. Each tier received a distinct investment logic. Budget was no longer distributed evenly across the catalog. It was allocated based on what each product had earned.
Existing campaigns were audited and rebuilt from scratch. Poor structure had meant broad targeting was bleeding budget on irrelevant search terms, multiple campaigns were bidding against each other on the same keywords, and high-margin products were being underfunded while low-margin ones consumed the budget. Every campaign was restructured with a clear purpose, match type discipline, and negative keyword frameworks to stop the bleed.
High CPCs were driven by uncontrolled bidding on broad terms. We introduced placement-adjusted bidding, harvested converting search terms into exact-match campaigns, and systematically pushed down bids on terms that were generating spend without proportionate return. CPCs fell without sacrificing visibility on the terms that mattered.
The catalog analysis identified which products had the strongest margin profiles and the most defensible ranking positions. Advertising investment was redirected toward these products first — concentrating spend where it would compound rather than spreading it thin across 500 ASINs equally.
Net profit grew from $2M to $3M — a $1M increase and a 45% YOY gain — over 12 months. Revenue grew alongside it. The restructure did not require cutting spend; it required spending with structure. The same budget, applied with discipline across a properly segmented 500-ASIN catalog, produced fundamentally different profitability outcomes.
A 500-ASIN catalog is not 500 equal investment opportunities. Most brands treat it that way — and most brands leave significant profit on the table as a result. Segmentation, prioritisation, and campaign architecture discipline convert a chaotic catalog into a structured profit engine. The spend doesn’t need to decrease. It needs to know where to go.
We segment, prioritise, and rebuild the structure that turns ad spend into profit — not just revenue.