Case Study · Home & Furniture

Shifted spend to furniture scaled it 4.4× at 4.91x.

Already at 3.3x on ₹52K a month and stuck there — the cheap décor carrying the budget couldn't pay for a furniture buyer's clicks. Moving the weight onto high-ticket pieces nearly doubled order value and took spend 4.4× at 4.91x.

ClientLa Conifera
CategoryHome décor & furniture
ScopeMeta media buying & creative strategy
TimelineOct 2025 – Sep 2026
The results
October baseline to September
1.9×₹2,793 → ₹5,316
Average order value
6.5×₹1.73L → ₹11.32L a month
Revenue from Meta
4.4×₹52K → ₹2.30L a month
Ad spend absorbed profitably
3.4×62 → 213 a month
Orders
+48%3.31 → 4.91
Return on ad spend
₹80.8L1,555 orders at 4.31x blended
Revenue over 12 months
Deeper shade = larger gain
3.31xAt takeover
4.91xBy September

Four times the spend, at a better return than it started with.

Spend against return, month by month

The dip in the middle is the part worth reading.

0 ₹50K ₹1L ₹1.5L ₹2L ₹2.5L 4.0x 6.0x Late Jun — consolidation onto proven creative 3.31x 5.95x 4.91x Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Bars — monthly ad spend Line — return on ad spend
The situation

Good numbers on a budget too small to matter.

La Conifera sells home décor and furniture — clicks are expensive, the decision takes weeks, and the difference between a serving platter and a coffee table is an order worth five times as much.

At 3.31x on ₹52,000 a month the account was profitable and almost irrelevant to the business. Every budget increase pushed the return down, because the products carrying the spend were too cheap to pay for a furniture buyer's clicks.

What the audit found

Three problems, none of them fixable by bidding.

LowAverage order value

At ₹2,793 an order, the maths barely worked. With ₹500 CPMs and a slow decision, the account needed orders worth more — not clicks worth less.

ThinCreative supply

A narrow set of assets carried prospecting. In a category bought on how a piece looks in a room, the strongest lever available was barely being pulled.

ManualBidding approach

Budgets steered by hand across campaigns too small to learn from, so each one stayed stuck in an expensive cold start.

When clicks are expensive and the decision is slow, the cheapest way to grow is to sell something worth more.

What we did

Put the budget behind the furniture.

On 24 October we opened a dedicated furniture testing campaign and moved prospecting weight onto high-ticket pieces. Everything after that was about holding the return steady while the budget climbed.

  • Shifted the mix to furnitureProspecting moved onto high-ticket pieces. ₹5.18L at 3.92x.
  • Kept catalogue running underneathThe long tail carried without its own creative. 4.24x across ₹4.03L.
  • Moved to ROAS-goal biddingFrom 7 March, a return target instead of hand-steering. ₹5.18L at 5.09x.
  • Consolidated onto proven creativeBest assets into one CBO and Advantage+ structure. 5.50x at ₹793.
  • Built against the festive calendarA festive set live in early August. 4.09x through the season.
  • Cut what didn't work, earlyLookalikes, cost-cap, traffic and early retargeting — all stopped inside their test budgets.
Before and after

Where it started, how it scaled, where it is now.

Before · Oct 2025
₹52Ka month, at 3.31x
62 orders · ₹2,793 an order

Profitable and too small to matter. Cheap décor carried prospecting, so every budget increase pushed the return down.

How we scaled · from 24 Oct
₹2,793 →
₹5,316average order value
Furniture campaign absorbed ₹5.18L at 3.92x

Furniture took over prospecting and order value nearly doubled. February to June drifted into a 3.61x trough as the first creative set fatigued; consolidating in late June lifted July–September back to 4.83x.

Now · Sep 2026
₹2.30La month, at 4.91x
213 orders · ₹5,316 an order

Four times the opening budget at a better return, with order value holding near double. The business now feels the difference between a good month and a bad one.

The dip was a creative problem — and the account grew out of it rather than retreating from it.

Return on ad spend 3.61x → 4.83x +34%
Monthly spend ₹1.57L → ₹2.12L +35%
Monthly revenue ₹5.67L → ₹10.23L +80%
Orders a month 112 → 190 +69%
February–June average against July–September average
Where the profitability came from

Order value is the cheapest growth available to any brand.

Average order value moved from ₹2,793 to ₹5,316 — the same customer, acquired at roughly the same effort, buying something worth more. It costs nothing in media, which is why cost per order could rise from ₹843 to ₹1,082 and the account still got more profitable.

It is also why the budget could grow at all. At ₹2,793 an order, ₹2.3L a month would have been unaffordable. At ₹5,316 it returns 4.91x.

Sell something worth more, and every other number in the account gets easier.

What a founder can take from this

Raise the order, not the budget

When clicks are expensive, pushing more spend through cheap products just buys the same bad maths at scale. Find the product whose price can carry the acquisition cost.

A dip is a creative problem first

Five months of soft returns were not a harder auction. The first winning creative set had run its course, and performance recovered as soon as proven assets were consolidated.

Give the platform a target, not instructions

Hand-steering small campaigns keeps them all learning and none performing. One goal-based campaign with real budget beat everything managed manually.

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