The Challenge
In September, the Meta account structure was still too segmented, which limited the platform’s ability to optimise efficiently.
Within the multiple campaign setup, each SKU had its own ad set.
While this approach gave the team control over individual products, it restricted the way Meta’s optimisation system could work.
Because each product operated in its own ad set, Meta had limited opportunities to learn which combinations of products and creatives converted best. The algorithm was also less able to sequence multiple offers together in a conversion journey.
In practice, this meant the platform was often serving variations of the same product to the same audiences instead of presenting a broader range of offers.
This segmentation also made it more difficult to scale efficiently. Budget was spread across too many ad sets, preventing the algorithm from concentrating spend on the strongest performers.
As a result, the account struggled to consistently hit acquisition targets while maintaining the desired nCPA.
The Strategy: Account Consolidation
The core strategy to address this issue was Meta account consolidation.
Rather than continuing to separate products across many ad sets, the goal was to create an environment where Meta could optimise across multiple products, creatives, and audiences simultaneously.
By consolidating the account structure, Meta’s algorithm could:
- Evaluate performance across a wider set of products
- Sequence different offers together
- Dynamically allocate budget to the strongest performers
Instead of structuring the account around product segmentation, we redesigned the account around performance tiers.
The New Meta Account Structure
The new structure centred around a single consolidated scaling campaign.
Within that campaign, ad sets were organised according to performance level rather than individual SKUs.
Best Performers
This ad set contained the highest-performing creatives and SKUs across the account. These ads had already proven their ability to acquire customers efficiently and therefore received the majority of campaign spend.
Rising Performers
This ad set contained creatives that showed strong early signals but had not yet reached the same level of efficiency as the best-performing ads.
Dedicated Scaling Ad Sets
For certain high-priority SKUs where additional creative production was expected, dedicated scaling ad sets were created. This allowed those products to scale independently without competing with other SKUs inside the main scaling pools.
Testing Ad Sets
New creatives were introduced through testing ad sets. This allowed the team to evaluate performance before promoting winning creatives into the scaling environment.
Creative Testing Framework
To support the new structure, we introduced a structured testing process.
New creatives were launched in testing ad sets and evaluated over a four to five day testing period. After this window, the best-performing creatives were promoted into the best performer or rising performer scaling ad sets.
This ensured that only proven creatives entered the core scaling environment.
However, because the campaign operated with campaign budget optimisation (CBO), testing ad sets could sometimes divert too much budget away from scaling ad sets. In other situations, testing ad sets received very little spend, making it difficult to evaluate new creatives.
To address this, spend guardrails were introduced for testing ad sets.
Initially, testing ad sets were limited to:
- Minimum spend: 5%
- Maximum spend: 10%
As the campaign scaled further, these limits were refined to:
- Minimum spend: 4%
- Maximum spend: 8%
This ensured that new creatives received enough budget to be tested properly while protecting the stability of the scaling ad sets.