A store selling a single core product needs to know the most it can pay to acquire an order and still hit its profit goal — then measure three live campaigns against that number.
| Campaign | Spend | Purchases | Revenue | Actual CPA | Actual ROAS | Hook | Hold | ATC | Web CVR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ₱30,000 | 30 | ₱72,000 | ₱1,000 | 2.40x | 27% | 14% | 11% | 4.1% |
| B | ₱18,000 | 10 | ₱24,000 | ₱1,800 | 1.33x | 39% | 12% | 7% | 1.9% |
| C | ₱12,000 | 8 | ₱19,200 | ₱1,500 | 1.60x | 34% | 20% | 14% | 4.5% |
| Target | — | — | ₱1,000 | 2.40x | — | ||||
Lands exactly on target at the largest spend of the three, so it isn't a fluke of low volume — it's a proven, repeatable result. Nothing here is "broken" to fix; the only question is how much further it can go before CPA starts to creep.
This is the strongest ad of the three at the top of the funnel — best Hook (39%), best CTR, cheapest clicks (₱18 CPC) — so the creative is clearly earning attention cheaply. But ATC (7%) and Website CVR (1.9%) are the lowest of the three: people click, then don't convert. That's a post-click problem — the landing page or offer isn't backing up what the ad promised — not a creative problem. Fixing the ad won't fix a page that isn't converting.
The mirror image of B: once someone lands, this converts the best of the three (Hold 20%, ATC 14%, Website CVR 4.5% — all the top scores). The problem is reaching people affordably — CPM (₱396) is the highest of the three and volume is the lowest (8 purchases). The offer and page are working; the delivery is expensive. This calls for cheaper or broader audience testing, not a creative or landing-page rewrite — and the small sample size (8 purchases) means it's worth more spend before judging it too harshly either way.
A lead-gen business needs to know the most it can pay per lead and still hit its profit goal per closed customer — using its own booked-appointment and show-up rates to translate a customer target into a lead target.
| Campaign | Spend | Leads | CPL | Appt. | Show | Close | Est. sales | Actual CAC | Est. profit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ₱28,000 | 50 | ₱560 | 50% | 70% | 20% | ~3.5 | ₱8,000 | +₱14,000 |
| B | ₱30,000 | 40 | ₱750 | 70% | 75% | 25% | ~5.3 | ₱5,714 | +₱33,000 |
| C | ₱24,000 | 60 | ₱400 | 25% | 60% | 10% | ~0.9 | ₱26,667 | −₱13,200 |
| Target | — | ₱560 | — | — | ₱8,000 | — | |||
Both the cost per lead and every downstream rate (appointment, show, close) land exactly on the assumptions used to set the target. That's the cleanest possible read: scale it and keep watching that the funnel holds as volume grows.
By CPL alone this looks like the worst campaign — the most expensive lead of the three. But its appointment (70%), show (75%), and close (25%) rates all beat the assumed funnel, so the blended CAC comes in well under target and it produces both the most sales (~5) and the most profit (+₱33,000) of the three. This is the campaign to scale first, even though its top-line lead cost looks the least attractive — worth checking why the funnel converts this much better (a better-matched audience, or a stronger booking process) before assuming a higher CPL is automatically bad.
The cheapest, highest-volume leads of the three — and the worst business outcome by a wide margin. Every downstream rate collapses (25% appointment, 60% show, only 10% close, all the lowest of the three), which points to a lead-quality problem, not a lead-cost problem: the targeting or ad promise is likely attracting people who aren't a real fit for what's being sold. Cheap leads that don't convert are more expensive than expensive leads that do — pause and fix qualification before spending further.
The single biggest trap in both scenarios is judging a campaign by the metric that's easiest to see first — CTR, CPC, or CPL — instead of following it all the way to CAC or ROAS.
The same four questions, answered fast, for the campaign in each scenario that needed the most attention.