A Construction Materials Retailer × Trelis
A broad, multi-category catalogue turned into four narrow, trackable campaigns — each judged on its own cost per result.
Client identity anonymized for confidentiality — every figure below is real and unaltered.
Meta Ads Manager data, 10 Mar 2026 – 28 Aug 2026 · four campaigns
The catalogue spans hardware, cement, paints, roofing, plumbing and structural steel — too broad to advertise as one thing. So instead of one generic campaign, the account became four narrow, trackable bets.
A Construction Materials Retailer
A construction-materials retailer operating across Kerala, positioned around a wide multi-category catalogue rather than a single product line. Cladding and fencing ran as its two core product-led campaigns, alongside a small local-market test.
Ran cladding and fencing as two separate lead-generation campaigns instead of one blended "construction materials" campaign.
Tested a named local market as its own standalone geography to see whether demand held up outside the core region before committing more spend.
Paired a lead form with a WhatsApp option in that local-market test, giving lower-intent prospects a lighter way to start a conversation.
Tracked cost per result at the individual campaign level throughout, so budget could shift toward whichever product line was actually converting.
Kept this account focused on the retailer’s own core catalogue — a related but separately-run sister brand’s product line is reported on its own.
Used campaign-level reporting, not account averages, as the basis for every optimisation decision.
What four campaigns actually produced
Figures below are the supplied Meta Ads export’s own totals across four campaigns belonging to this retailer’s own catalogue (10 Mar – 28 Aug 2026).
Four campaigns, four cost curves
Splitting a broad catalogue into narrow campaigns is the only way to see that one product line is meaningfully more efficient than another at similar spend levels.
Splitting a broad catalogue into narrow campaigns costs more setup effort up front, but it’s the only way to see that cladding is meaningfully more efficient than fencing — a signal that’s invisible inside one blended account number.
Five operating principles behind the numbers
Split the catalogue, not the budget
Cladding and fencing each got a dedicated campaign so cost per result could be compared honestly.
Test new geography on its own line
The local market ran as a standalone campaign rather than folding into the core Kerala budget.
Offer more than one conversion path
A lead form captured structured enquiries; WhatsApp gave a lighter option to less-ready prospects in the test market.
Judge every campaign on its own number
No campaign was compared against a blended account average — each stood on its own cost per result.
Keep the account to this brand’s own catalogue
A sister brand’s specialised product line is reported as its own separate case, not blended in here.
Let the data pick the next investment
Cladding’s efficiency over fencing is a budget-reallocation signal, not a one-off observation.
Shift incremental budget toward cladding — it’s outperforming fencing on cost per lead at similar spend.
Expand the test market to a full campaign if early efficiency holds.
Add a third product-specific line for another high-catalogue-share category.
Test WhatsApp as a parallel option on the core Kerala campaigns, not just the test market.
"A broad catalogue is not one campaign waiting to happen — it’s several. The account only got useful once each product and market got its own number to be judged by."
