How structured Google Ads expansion from 1 to 6 markets increased channel contribution from 4.93% to 26.9%
Founder
1. Objective
Client: Unsolved
Industry: Mystery games
Markets: Sweden → NL, NO, FI, DK, BE
Period: Account taken over November 2025
Initial context
When we took over the account, Google Ads was already generating sales in Sweden, but it was not yet positioned as a real growth channel compared to Meta.
The business was operating successfully in one market, but Google Ads had not yet been structured to support international expansion.
In Q3 2025, Google Ads represented just 4.93% of total revenue.
By Q4 2025 (transition period) this became 13.09%.
By Q1 2026 (until March): 26.93%.
What this showed us early:
Demand existed.
Products converted.
But the account was not built to support expansion.
Google had room to grow, but the structure was limiting how far we could push it safely.
The initial discussion was about scaling Google Ads. But the real opportunity was expansion.
The account was already performing in Sweden. The issue wasn’t performance. It was that everything was built around one market.
Google Ads was not structured in a way that could support adding new countries without rebuilding things every time.
So the real focus became building a structure that allows:
- expansion into new markets
- predictable acquisition costs
- scaling without losing control
Most important: building something that can be reused when entering new markets.
2. Growth limitations identified
Before making changes, performance limitations were mostly structural rather than demand related.
Main constraints identified:
Mixed campaign intent → hard to control budgets
Limited keyword coverage → growth limited to existing demand
Underutilized Shopping → high intent searches not fully captured
No rollout logic → expansion required rebuilding each time
Blended reporting → difficult to scale with confidence
One thing we noticed quickly:
- The account wasn’t underperforming.
- It just wasn’t organised for what the business was trying to become.
There is a big difference between an account that works and an account that scales.
Our job was to make it scalable.
3. Strategic changes
Tracking & measurement
We did not start with optimization. We started with structure.
First step was improving tracking clarity to clearly understand:
- Where growth comes from
- Which markets justify scaling
- Which campaigns deserve budget
Without that, scaling becomes guessing.
Tracking is something we don’t compromise on. Scaling without accurate data rarely ends well.
Campaign segmentation
We separated campaigns by buying intent:
Brand
Competitor
Generic
Shopping
Remarketing
This immediately improved budget clarity, Signal quality and decision confidence.
Note: In practice we often see performance limited by things that are actually simple. Over time, accounts tend to become overcomplicated and the original structure that made campaigns work gets lost.
Market rollout model
Instead of expanding everywhere at once, we first made Sweden stable enough to act as a reference structure.
Once that was in place, we used it as the base for expansion.
Then replicated the model into:
- Netherlands
- Norway
- Finland
- Denmark
- Belgium
But not blindly. Each market required adjustments based on search behaviour, Language nuance. Competition pressure and logistics realities and POAS levels required for profitability.
There are always performance differences between markets. That part is expected.
What matters is having a proven structure and a clear rollout model.
Because instead of figuring everything out again for each market, you are deploying something that already works and adapting it locally.
That is what usually makes international scaling predictable instead of chaotic.
Feed improvements
A lot of the gains came from feed adjustments as well: Product titles, Category logic. Shopping visibility and Dynamic Custom Labels based on performance.
Note: Not glamorous work. But this is often where efficiency is won.
Unexpected wins along the way
- Sweden proved the model before expansion
- Netherlands scaled faster than expected and became the leading revenue market
- Belgium profitable but still improving as data accumulates
- Feed work contributed more than expected
4. Execution changes
Main adjustments included:
- Rebuilding campaign architecture
- Separating acquisition vs protection budgets
- Expanding Shopping coverage
- Creating replication logic for new markets
Our guiding principle:
Structure first. Budget second.
We prefer to scale only when signals justify it.
5. Results
The biggest change was not performance improvement.
It was moving from one market to a scalable multi-market setup.
We went from:
1 active market → 6 active markets in ~4 months
Without needing to rebuild the account structure each time.
A big part of the Google Ads growth came from unlocking these additional markets, not just improving Sweden.
This growth came mainly from:
- Adding new markets
- Scaling what already worked
- Increasing total addressable demand
Not just improving efficiency.
Q1 2026 snapshot
ROAS by market:
Google Ads became a meaningful revenue driver across multiple European markets, generating over 3M SEK in 2026 so far.
The strongest growth came from the Netherlands and Sweden, while Denmark, Norway, Belgium, and Finland showed strong efficiency signals.
Budgets were increased only where performance justified it. Not everywhere at once.
6. Takeaway
What changed most was not just the campaigns.
It was moving from campaign management to a growth partnership.
Decisions became faster.
Testing became easier.
Scaling became less risky.
And that usually matters more than any campaign change.
Who this applies to
This type of setup usually works best for companies that:
- Are already performing in one country
- Want to expand internationally
- Need more predictable scaling
- Feel limited by their current structure
This is usually where structure matters most.
Not when starting ads, but when trying to grow beyond one market.
Why this matters
Many companies try to scale Google Ads by increasing spend.
We prefer to scale by increasing clarity first.
The spend usually follows naturally.
Closing note
If you are already spending on Google Ads and feel like growth is possible but unpredictable, usually the issue is not budget or creatives.
It is structure and decision clarity.
That is usually where we start.
More Case Studies
How We Helped Scanfarma Achieve +200% Growth in 14 Months
- +200% revenue growth in 14 months
- Boosted revenue by 235% with Google Ads
How Becker.dk Stopped Treating 800,000 Products Equally — and Turned Google Ads into a Profit Engine
- Scaled Google Ads revenue from €100K to €400K+/month
- Increased ROAS from 6.0 to 9.35 (+56%)
How Accent Clothing Recovered Up to 51% of Misallocated Google Ads Spend and Increased ROAS from 1.95 to 8.37 in 5 Months
- Recovered up to 51% of misallocated ad spend
- Increased ROAS from 1.95 to 8.37 in 5 months