The Challenge

Force Factor’s campaigns were underperforming across three key metrics simultaneously: CPA was above target, CPC was too high, and ROAS was below goal. Most agencies would pick one to optimize and accept trade-offs on the others. We didn’t.

What We Did

The challenge with optimizing CPC, CPA, and ROAS simultaneously is that the levers you pull for each can work against each other. Lowering CPC often means broader audiences with lower conversion rates, which hurts CPA. Improving ROAS can mean restricting spend to only the highest-value conversions, which limits scale and can drive CPCs up in competitive auctions.

We approached this as a campaign architecture problem, not a bidding problem. We restructured campaigns to segment audiences by intent stage — using different creative, bidding strategies, and optimization objectives for cold audiences, warm retargeting, and high-intent converters. This segmentation allowed each campaign to optimize for what it was actually good at, rather than forcing a single campaign to serve multiple incompatible goals.

Creative testing ran continuously across all segments, with a focus on messaging that reduced friction at each stage of the funnel. The result was a compounding efficiency gain: lower CPCs brought in more qualified traffic, which improved CPA, which lifted ROAS — all improving together rather than trading off against each other.

The Results

• 25% ROAS increase — across the full campaign account
• 13% lower CPA — more customers acquired per dollar of ad spend
• 12% decrease in CPC — more efficient traffic acquisition across all campaigns

The Takeaway

If your agency is telling you that you have to choose between lower CPA and better ROAS, they’re solving the wrong problem. The right campaign architecture lets you improve all three simultaneously — because the root cause of underperformance is usually structural, not just a bidding issue.