62% Revenue Surge for an Online Sewing Retailer — Google Ads Case Study

The Challenge

A prominent UK online sewing supplies retailer was running Google Ads but not getting the most from their budget. Shopping and Search campaigns were lumped together without clear segmentation, making it impossible to identify which products were pulling their weight and which were draining spend.

The goal was straightforward: grow revenue without a proportional increase in spend. That means improving efficiency — better campaign structure, smarter bidding, and cleaner data to act on.

What We Changed

1. Shopping Campaign SegmentationWe split Shopping campaigns by product performance tier rather than running one catch-all campaign. High-performing products got their own campaigns with appropriate budgets and bid targets; weaker products were isolated so they couldn’t drag down overall ROAS.
2. Performance-Based Budget AllocationBudget was reallocated away from underperforming segments and towards proven earners. This sounds obvious — but most accounts don’t do it systematically. We used conversion value data to make the case for every budget shift.
3. Target ROAS BiddingOnce the campaigns had enough conversion data, we moved to target ROAS smart bidding. This let Google’s auction-time bidding optimise for revenue rather than clicks — which matters enormously for a retailer with a wide range of product prices.
4. Brand vs. Non-Brand SeparationWe separated brand keyword traffic from non-brand traffic into distinct campaigns. This gives cleaner reporting — you can see what your brand is actually worth in paid search versus how hard you’re working to win new customers — and stops inflated conversion rates masking non-brand inefficiency.

Shopping Campaign Results

Shopping was the primary focus, and the results reflected that. Conversion value surged 124.78% to £160,569.72, conversions grew 62.75% to 3,849, and the Shopping conversion rate improved 60.07% to 6.75%.

That 124% lift in conversion value — more than doubling revenue from Shopping alone — came from the structural changes: better segmentation meant budget chased performance, and target ROAS kept bids sharp at auction time.

Search Campaign Results

Search campaigns also improved, though the focus here was efficiency as much as growth. Revenue from Search grew 17.69% to £116,378.37 while costs actually fell 25.07%. Conversion rate jumped 39.38%.

The brand/non-brand split was particularly valuable here — it made clear which Search spend was working and where to tighten or expand.

Why These Results Are Hard to Replicate Without Structure

• Segmentation unlocks insight — you cannot optimise what you cannot measure. One campaign for all products hides winners and losers.
• Target ROAS only works with enough data — we built that data foundation first before switching bidding strategies.
• Brand/non-brand separation is non-negotiable — blended metrics make your account look better than it is and lead to bad decisions.
• Budget follows performance, not habit — most accounts distribute budget based on gut feel or history; we used conversion value data instead.
• Efficiency compounds — a better-structured account produces cleaner signals, which makes smart bidding smarter over time.

What's Next for This Account

Even with these results, there are clear areas to push further. Several high-performing product segments are hitting budget caps, meaning we’re leaving money on the table during peak demand. Impression share gaps in key non-brand terms suggest room to grow reach without compromising ROAS. Mobile performance is also an ongoing optimisation area — conversion rates on mobile still lag desktop, and closing that gap is the next lever.

Accounts like this rarely reach a ceiling. Once structure is right and bidding is efficient, growth becomes a matter of identifying the next constraint and removing it.