Methodology
Campaigns structured around customers, not platform objectives
Most agencies structure campaigns around what Google recommends. We structure around where the customer is, whether the spend is genuinely incremental, and what it contributes to your margin.
The problem with platform-objective-led campaigns
Google Ads is optimised to maximise conversions. But it does not distinguish between a new customer finding you for the first time and a loyal customer who typed your brand name into Google and would have bought anyway. Both count as "conversions." Both inflate your ROAS. Only one represents genuine growth.
The Framework
Three customer states, three strategies
Every pound of ad spend is allocated based on the customer's relationship with your brand and the probability that the conversion would not have happened without paid intervention.
New Customer
True IncrementalityCustomers who would not have found you without paid activity. This is genuine growth: new demand, not captured demand.
Key metrics
- New customer CAC
- First-order AOV
- 30-day repeat rate
- Channel of first discovery
Our approach
Prospecting campaigns, non-brand search, Shopping for discovery queries, and upper-funnel PMax asset groups targeting new audiences.
Lapsed Customer
High-Value ReactivationCustomers who already know your brand but have not purchased in 90+ days. Reactivation through paid is genuinely incremental because organic channels have already failed to bring them back.
Key metrics
- Reactivation CAC vs. new CAC
- Time since last purchase
- Historical LTV
- Post-reactivation repeat rate
Our approach
Customer match audiences, tailored creative, and bidding strategies that reflect the lower risk of a returning customer vs. a cold prospect.
Active / Loyal Customer
Non-Incremental (Guard)Customers who are actively browsing, have purchased recently, and would likely convert without paid intervention. Spending here inflates platform-reported ROAS but creates zero incremental value.
Key metrics
- Organic conversion rate for this segment
- Brand search overlap
- Holdout test results
Our approach
Suppression from prospecting campaigns, reduced bid modifiers, and regular holdout testing to validate that spend on this segment is genuinely additive.
Worked Example
How this changes the numbers
A brand spending £50k/month on Google Ads with a reported 5x ROAS (£250k revenue)
Before: Platform View
After: Incremental View
The gap: 42% of "attributed" revenue was non-incremental. The platform reported 5x ROAS but the true incremental ROAS was 2.9x. Without this framework, the brand was making budget decisions on inflated numbers and over-investing in customers it already owned.
Four principles that change how you think about spend
Not all conversions are created equal
A conversion claimed by Google Ads is not necessarily a conversion caused by Google Ads. The distinction between attribution and causation is the most expensive blind spot in ecommerce advertising.
Brand search is not always incremental
If a customer searches your brand name, they already know you. Paying for that click often means paying for a sale you would have received anyway. We test this with holdouts before committing budget.
Retargeting has diminishing returns
Showing ads to someone who visited your site 6 hours ago and has items in their basket is rarely incremental. We use frequency caps, recency windows, and suppression lists to avoid paying for inevitable conversions.
Platform metrics optimise for platform objectives
Google wants you to maximise conversions. Your business needs you to maximise contribution margin on incremental customers. These objectives often conflict, and the campaign structure needs to reflect that.
Find out what your account looks like through this lens
We will show you the gap between your platform-reported performance and your true incremental value. Most brands find 25-40% of "attributed" revenue is non-incremental.