₹43L on one product. 17× the revenue.
Stuck at ₹1.75L a month and 1.5x, the budget was spread across the whole catalogue. Putting it behind a single hero SKU — the oral spray — took the account to ₹21.4L a month at 2.11x.
The final month almost doubled — and the return held at 2.1x.
Every budget increase, and what it returned.
A category people buy quietly, sold with advertising that said nothing specific.
Lickcious sells intimate wellness — a category where almost nobody clicks an ad that announces what they are buying. Messaging is the hardest variable in the account, and the only one that really moves performance.
The account was not set up to work on it: three near-identical campaigns split by audience, a static set of creatives underneath, returns stuck at 1.5x. Every budget increase pushed cost per purchase up, so spend stayed capped at ₹1.75L.
Three problems, none of them fixable by bidding.
Budget split evenly across the catalogue, so no product built enough conversion signal to learn from. Every campaign stayed in a permanent cold start.
A handful of assets carried the whole account, with no system for producing replacements. In a category that lives or dies on framing, the one lever that mattered sat idle.
Three campaigns testing audiences, none testing messages — optimising the variable the platform already handles, ignoring the one it cannot solve alone.
You cannot bid your way out of an account that has nothing new to say.
One product to win with, and a machine to feed it.
On 29 December we put the whole top of funnel behind a single hero SKU — the oral spray — inside a dedicated creative-testing campaign. Everything after that fed it, consolidated what won, and cut what didn't.
- Named a hero SKUOne product carried all prospecting. ₹43L at 2.04x — over 40% of the year's spend.
- Ran continuous creative testingNew angles on a fixed cadence, not after a dip. A replacement was always ready.
- Consolidated proven winnersOne campaign holding only tested winners. 2.27x at ₹296 a purchase.
- Put the long tail on catalogueEverything else ran through catalogue. 2.26x, no production cost.
- Moved to goal-based buyingCPA and ROAS targets handed to the platform. Best cells 2.52x at ₹272.
- Killed losing tests fastPerfumes, intimate wash, lookalikes, marketplace — all under 1.2x, all cut early.
Where it started, how it scaled, where it is now.
Three audience campaigns, a static creative set, and a budget that couldn't move without costs rising.
₹12.3LDecember to May
One product took the top of funnel, fed by new angles on a fixed cadence. Budget rose only as fast as creative could supply it — spend doubled inside a month at 2.35x.
Twelve times the opening budget, at a better return and a cost per purchase nearly a third lower. Scale usually costs efficiency. Here it didn't.
And the last month alone almost doubled — without giving up the return.
Concentration beats coverage
Spreading budget across a catalogue starves every product of the signal it needs. Pick the one that can carry acquisition and put the weight there.
Creative supply is the real budget
Once structure is sound, how much you can spend is set by how fast you can produce new angles. Run creative as a production line, not a reaction to a bad week.
Separate testing from scaling
Experimental spend inside a proven campaign drags its average and corrupts its learning. Keep one campaign that only runs winners, and let tests fail somewhere safe.
Thinking your brand can grow bigger and better?
Schedule a no-obligation call and let's discover how we can add value to what you're already doing.
Schedule a call