A cosmetics brand, €30,000 of advertising, and a ROAS confirmed in the back office of 2.29x

The context

A cosmetics brand selling online. The ad budget was stepped up over six months, from €2,000 to €7,500 a month, for €30,000 in total. Average order value moved from €54 to €68 by pushing bundles.

The two ROAS, and why they differ

Meta reports 2.83x. The brand’s back office confirms 2.29x. The gap comes from the way Meta attributes sales: it claims some it watched happen without having caused them, and it does so on every campaign of every advertiser.

That is why both figures are here. Steering on the Meta dashboard alone means steering on the more flattering of the two.

At the confirmed ROAS of 2.29x, €30,000 of advertising corresponds to about €68,700 of revenue. That is a calculation (2.29 × 30,000), not a figure read from the ads manager.

The break-even point

This brand breaks even at 1.64x. Both measurements clear it: the campaign is profitable on either reading, and the decision to raise the budget held on both.

A break-even of 1.64x corresponds to a gross margin of about 61% (1 divided by 1.64). The threshold is always worked out that way, from the margin, and never from a ROAS that merely looks good.

What moved the basket

Average order value went from €54 to €68 by pushing bundles. At the same ad spend, that is about 26% more revenue on the same number of orders.

That lever belongs to the offer and the page, not to the advertising itself. It is worked on before raising the budget.

What the net result contains

Repeat purchases included, the brand makes €18,443 of net result. That figure includes the later orders of customers acquired through the advertising.