A Direct-Response Ayurvedic Brand × Trelis
A high-volume, multi-product direct-response engine — 52 campaigns across two ad accounts, built entirely around calls, WhatsApp and lead forms.
Client identity anonymized for confidentiality — every figure below is real and unaltered.
Meta Ads Manager data, 29 Nov 2024 – 29 Aug 2026 · 52 campaign rows across 2 ad accounts
At this volume the account isn’t one campaign — it’s a leaderboard. Every call, WhatsApp and lead campaign is ranked against the others on cost per result, and creative keeps shifting to protect the top of that list.
A Direct-Response Ayurvedic Brand
This is an online Ayurvedic wellness store with a growing multi-product range — a flagship men’s-wellness product, a piles-care line, and several supporting categories — sold across Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
High-volume call campaigns run per caller identity, each tracked and compared on cost per call.
WhatsApp scaled as a parallel low-friction channel across both core states.
Flagship product and piles-care line each given dedicated campaigns instead of one blended product message.
Geo-specific targeting split Kerala and Tamil Nadu into their own performance lines.
Lead-form campaigns layered in for structured follow-up alongside calls and chat.
Same infrastructure reused for telecalling, office-assistant and personal-assistant hiring.
What the two-account operation actually produced
Figures below are summed across the 52 supplied campaign rows for the full reporting window (29 Nov 2024 – 29 Aug 2026).
Six named campaigns, ranked on cost per result
With 52 campaign rows in two ad accounts, the account works like a leaderboard — every call and chat campaign is judged against the others, not against a single blended average.
A 52-campaign, two-account operation only stays manageable when every call, chat and lead campaign is compared against the others on cost per result — not averaged into one number that hides which caller, product or state is actually working.
Six operating principles behind the numbers
Rank campaigns, don’t average them
With 52 rows live, every call and WhatsApp campaign is compared against its peers on cost per result, not blended into one account-wide figure.
Give each product its own budget
The flagship product and the piles-care line ran as separate campaigns, so each could be judged on its own numbers.
Split by state, not just by product
Kerala and Tamil Nadu ran as distinct performance lines, since cost per call and per conversation differ by market.
Use WhatsApp as a first-class channel
The top WhatsApp campaign (₹7.10/conversation) ran alongside, not underneath, the call campaigns.
Extend the engine to hiring
Telecaller, office-assistant and personal-assistant roles were recruited through the same lead-form infrastructure as customers.
Iterate on cost, not gut feel
Multiple caller identities were tested per product, and spend followed whichever variant produced the cheapest call.
Shift more budget toward the ₹7.10 WhatsApp campaign — it’s the cheapest conversation in the account.
Test a third state the way Tamil Nadu was tested against Kerala, using the same product-led approach.
Push the lowest-cost caller identities harder before rotating in new ones.
Formalize the hiring-lead flow as a standing recruitment channel, not a one-off use of the same tools.
"At 52 campaigns and two ad accounts, the numbers only mean something once every call, chat and lead is measured against its peers — that discipline is what turns high volume into a manageable, improvable system."
