How Accent Clothing Recovered Up to 51% of Misallocated Google Ads Spend and Increased ROAS from 1.95 to 8.37 in 5 Months
Benjamin Fischer-Henrichsen
Founder
1. The Objective — What did the client actually need?
Client: Accent Clothing
Industry: Fashion (Luxury / Multi-brand Retail)
Market: UK
Business goal:
Scale revenue and profitability in a highly competitive fashion market by pushing the right products at the right time.
Real objective:
Stop wasting spend on underperforming products and build a system that only scales what is competitive and profitable.
The Client's Specific Challenge
Accent Clothing came to us with unstable and inefficient Google Ads performance.
They were heavily reliant on:
- Performance Max
- Campaigns structured by brands
The issue:
Performance was judged at brand level — not product level.
Which created:
- Strong products hidden inside weak brands
- Weak products draining budget inside strong brands
The Gap: Brand Performance ≠ Product Performance
- Some brands looked profitable → carried by a few strong products
- Some brands looked unprofitable → despite having winning products
Result:
- Budget allocation was misleading
- Winning products were underfunded
- Losing products were overfunded
Reality Check
Google Ads was running —
but it was not a controlled growth channel.
In a market like UK fashion:
Competitors constantly adjust pricing
Margins are tight
Demand is fragmented
Without structure → you lose.
What We Set Out to Achieve
Primary Objective:
Build a system that:
- Identifies and scales winning products
- Removes spend from non-competitive products
- Aligns ads with pricing, demand, and margin
Personal Note:
In fashion, you’re not competing on brand.
You’re competing on product, price, and timing.
2. The Growth Barrier — What was stopping performance?
Before working together, growth was limited by:
– Brand-based structure hiding real performance
– No control over which products were actually being scaled
Why Performance Was Stuck:
Barrier 1: Poor Structure (Brand-Level Thinking)
Symptom:
Campaigns structured by brand instead of product performance
Impact:
Budget allocated incorrectly → strong products ignored
Barrier 2: No Competitive Filtering
Symptom:
Products pushed regardless of price competitiveness
Impact:
Spending on products that couldn’t win → low ROAS
Personal Note:
If you don’t control what products you push, you’re just funding your competitors.
3. The Strategic Shift — Why did we change the approach?
Instead of letting Google decide what to push,
we took control over what deserves to scale.
Previous Approach (Limitations):
- Performance Max structured by brands
- No product-level prioritization
- No filtering based on competitiveness
- Google deciding spend allocation blindly
Strategic Framework (Our Approach):
1. Product-Level Prioritization
We moved away from brand structure and focused on:
- Individual product performance
- Profit margins
- Competitive pricing
Campaigns were built around:
- Top-performing SKUs across multiple brands
—not entire brands
2. Competitive Positioning as a Core Filter
In this market, one rule applies:
If you’re not competitive — you don’t scale.
We:
- Analyzed pricing vs competitors
- Identified where Accent Clothing could win
- Focused spend only on those products
3. Margin-Based Scaling
We didn’t just scale revenue.
We scaled:
- Products with strong margins
- Products that could sustain profitability
4. Dynamic Product Control
Using tools like PriceShape and data-driven processes, we:
- Reduced exposure on products where competitors were cheaper
- Shifted budget toward products where we had an advantage
- Ensured spend followed real-time competitiveness
Personal Note:
Google doesn’t know your margins.
It doesn’t know your competitiveness.
You have to tell it.
4. The Transformation — What did we actually change?
Account improvements:
- Rebuilt campaign structure from brand → product-based
- Mixed top-performing products across brands into focused campaigns
- Removed budget from underperforming SKUs
Conversion improvements:
- Focused traffic on competitive products
- Increased relevance between product, price, and demand
- Eliminated spend on low-converting products
Guiding principle:
Only scale what can win.
5. The Impact — What changed for the business?
| KPI | Before | After | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google Ads Revenue | £26,000/month (~€30,000) | ~£193,000/month (~€224,000) | +642% |
| ROAS | ~1.95 | 8.37 | +330% |
| Product Efficiency | Brand-based | Product-based | Better allocation |
| Profitability | Unstable | Controlled | Scalable growth |
Business outcomes:
- Massive revenue growth in just 5 months
- Google Ads became a profitable and scalable channel
- Stronger positioning in a highly competitive UK fashion market
- Budget fully aligned with profitability and competitiveness
6. The Takeaway — Why this matters
Most multibrands fail on Google Ads.
Not because of lack of products.
Not because of lack of demand.
Because:
- They rely on brand-level thinking
- They ignore pricing competitiveness
- They let Google decide what to scale
Closing note
If you are already investing in Google Ads and feel there is more potential, but performance depends too much on what gets budget, the issue often comes down to allocation.
From our experience, the biggest performance gains come from improving how the budget is distributed. When spend supports the products that truly drive results, growth becomes much easier to sustain.
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%)