← Back to proof
SAMPLE DELIVERABLE · CONDENSED FROM THE 15–25 PAGE CLIENT VERSION

Sample Ads Diagnostic — read what $497 buys before you spend it.

This is a condensed, anonymized sample of the Amazon Ads Diagnostic. The client version runs 15–25 pages and is built from your bulk reports; this one is a composite teaching case — a realistic account assembled from patterns I've found across real accounts over 4 years, with representative numbers. Every finding below is a real, recurring pattern. If several feel familiar, that's the point.

The account (composite): home & kitchen brand, 7 active SKUs, US marketplace. Trailing 30 days: $41,200 total revenue, $9,614 ad spend, $29,300 ad-attributed sales. Self-managed PPC, built at launch two years ago, "optimized" occasionally by pausing whatever looks scary. Sound like anyone you know?

1 · Account scorecard

ACOS
32.8%
TACOS
23.3%
Monthly ad spend
$9,614
Wasted spend found
$2,731/mo
Spend in auto
38%
Break-even ACOS
27%

The one-sentence verdict: this account pays $2,731 every month — 28% of its ad budget — for clicks that have already proven they don't convert, while its three most profitable campaigns run out of budget by early afternoon. The account isn't under-optimized; it's mis-allocated.

Client version adds: per-SKU scorecards, placement breakdown, 12-month trend, and category benchmarks for your ACOS band.

2 · The findings

1The auto campaigns became the account

Auto campaigns were meant to be discovery — two years later they're 38% of all spend and nobody has harvested them. The 14 search terms below converted repeatedly inside auto but were never promoted to exact-match campaigns, so the account keeps paying auto-tier CPCs for demand it already discovered. Sample of the harvest list:

Search term (in auto)30-day spendOrdersACOSShould be
[hero product] with lid$4123114.2%Own exact campaign
[hero product] dishwasher safe$2861917.8%Own exact campaign
[SKU-3 product] small kitchen$2041219.5%Own exact campaign

Client version: the full harvest list (typically 10–25 terms), each with its destination campaign, suggested starting bid, and the negative to add back in auto so you don't pay twice.

2The "exact" campaigns aren't exact

Three campaigns named SKC-Exact-* actually contain phrase and broad match keywords — added during a rushed expansion and never audited. Result: the campaigns you believe are your precision layer are buying loosely-related traffic at exact-campaign bids. One "exact" campaign spent $322 last month on search terms that don't contain the keyword at all.

3Negative-keyword gaps — the $412/month leak

Six search terms with meaningful spend, zero orders, ever — each one a negative that should have been added months ago:

Search termLifetime clicksLifetime spendOrdersFix
cheap [product category]214$3870Negative phrase, all campaigns
[competitor brand] [product]166$2980Negative exact (keep testing in a fenced campaign only)
[product] replacement parts143$2110Negative phrase
commercial [product category]98$1760Negative phrase (wrong buyer)

Client version: every zero-converting term above a spend threshold, grouped into a paste-ready negative list per campaign.

4Three campaigns are bidding against each other

The hero SKU's main keyword is live in three campaigns simultaneously (auto, an old broad campaign, and the "exact" campaign). They take turns winning the same auctions, which inflates the effective CPC roughly 20% and makes every campaign's data unreadable. This is the single most common structural fault I find in self-built accounts.

5Top-of-search converts 2.4× — and gets no priority

Placement data shows top-of-search converting at 2.4× the rate of rest-of-search for the hero SKUs — and every top-of-search bid modifier in the account is at 0%. Meanwhile product-page placements eat 31% of spend at the account's worst conversion rate. The money is standing in the wrong queue.

6The budget rewards the losers

41% of daily budget sits in campaigns running above 60% ACOS, while the three campaigns running under 15% ACOS hit their budget caps by early afternoon — every single day. The best campaigns in this account are being throttled to fund the worst ones. Reallocating budget alone — before touching a single bid — moves this account's blended ACOS by an estimated 4–6 points.

7No structure, no names, no way to manage it

Campaign names like "New campaign — Aug 12" and "test2" aren't cosmetic problems: they're why nobody can tell what's working in under an hour, which is why nobody looks. The restructure ships a naming convention (SKU · goal · match type) that makes the account readable at a glance — the precondition for every weekly routine in the 90-day plan.

3 · The 90-day plan (first weeks shown)

WhenActionWhy first
Week 1Stop-loss: paste in the negative lists; cut product-page placement waste; shift budget from the >60% ACOS campaigns to the capped winnersPure leak-plugging — no risk, immediate savings (~$1,900/mo of the $2,731 stops here)
Week 2Set top-of-search modifiers on hero campaigns; fence the competitor-targeting test into its own campaignReallocates spend toward the placement that converts 2.4× better
Weeks 3–4Harvest: launch exact campaigns for the 14 proven auto terms; add them as negatives in autoStops paying discovery prices for known demand
Weeks 5–8Restructure: dedupe the cannibalizing campaigns, rebuild to one-role-per-campaign, apply the naming conventionMakes the account readable and every future decision data-clean
Weeks 9–12Optimize: bid ladders on the new exact campaigns, weekly negative sweep routine, budget-reallocation cadence, KPI dashboard liveLocks the gains into a repeatable weekly system

Client version: week-by-week with named campaigns, exact bid changes, and a 30-minute weekly routine your team can run without me.

4 · What to track (the KPI dashboard)

The client version ships a dashboard template. The short version — five numbers weekly, and where each one should trend for this account:

  • Blended ACOS — 32.8% today; the plan targets the account's break-even band (≤27%) by week 6 and low-20s by week 12
  • TACOS — the honest number; if ACOS falls while TACOS rises, we're just hiding spend
  • Spend share in auto — from 38% toward ~15%: discovery budget, not the main engine
  • Zero-order spend — dollars on terms with no lifetime orders; should trend to near-zero and stay there
  • Winner throttle hours — how early your best campaigns hit budget; the goal is "they don't"
What this sample is, and isn't. This is a composite teaching case — representative numbers, real patterns, no real client's data. It's published so you can judge the deliverable before paying for it. The client version is built from your actual bulk reports, runs 15–25 pages, names your campaigns and your dollars, and comes with a 30-minute walkthrough call. It also states plainly what this page states: outcomes depend on execution — the plan is the product.