Retail Media Campaign Measurement Report

Example output

Retail media measurement report — NomNoms dog treats, Amazon Ads, 6-week campaign

Performance summary against goal
Mixed result: the campaign hit its efficiency and defense goals clearly but missed its growth-quality goal. A 3.2x ROAS on $12,000 spend against $38,000 attributed sales is a solid return, and holding 91% brand-term impression share means the defend objective — stopping competitors from winning your own brand search — succeeded. But the stated objective also included growing hero-SKU sales specifically through new buyers, and new-to-brand orders at 18% against a 30% goal is a real miss on that half of the objective.

ROAS and efficiency read
3.2x ROAS is healthy on its face, but ROAS alone doesn't tell you whether this was new business or harvested sales you'd have won anyway. Given that only 18% of orders were new-to-brand, a meaningful share of that $38,000 in attributed sales likely came from shoppers who already knew NomNoms and would have searched for or bought the brand regardless of the ads — the brand-defense campaign doing its job, in other words, rather than the growth campaign doing its job. This is the central tension in the report: strong headline ROAS partly reflects efficient harvesting, not proof of new-buyer growth.

Likely drivers
- Brand-term defense performing well is straightforward: exact-match brand campaigns convert efficiently by design, which inflates blended ROAS even when the growth objective underperforms. This is expected, not a surprise finding.
- The new-to-brand miss is more likely a targeting-mix issue than a budget issue: if the campaign structure leaned heavily on brand-defense and proven-converting terms rather than broader discovery or competitor-conquesting terms, the 18% new-to-brand rate is a predictable result of that mix, not a sign the product or creative failed to recruit. [Confirm the actual budget split between defend, harvest, and discovery campaign types to verify this read.]
- Creative and competitive pressure cannot be assessed from the metrics provided — no creative performance or competitor spend data was included in this pull.

What underperformed, and why the data shows it
The new-to-brand rate is the clear underperformance: 18% against a 30% goal is a 12-point miss, not a rounding difference. The data available points toward campaign structure (likely too much brand-defense and harvest weighting, too little discovery/conquesting spend) as the probable cause, but this is a directional read from the aggregate numbers provided, not a confirmed diagnosis — a campaign-type-level spend and performance breakdown would confirm or rule this out.

Learnings for the next campaign
1. Increase the discovery and competitor-conquesting budget share in the next campaign specifically to address new-to-brand growth, while holding the brand-defense spend that is clearly working.
2. Report ROAS and new-to-brand rate together going forward, never ROAS alone — this campaign shows how a strong blended ROAS can mask a missed growth objective.
3. Pull campaign-type-level performance data (not just the campaign total) next time, so a future readout can attribute results to defend versus harvest versus discovery directly instead of inferring it.

Leadership-ready summary
The NomNoms Amazon Ads campaign delivered a strong 3.2x ROAS and successfully defended 91% of brand-term impression share over 6 weeks on a $12,000 spend. However, new-to-brand orders came in at 18% against a 30% goal, suggesting the campaign's efficiency was driven more by defending and harvesting existing demand than recruiting new buyers. We recommend shifting budget mix toward discovery and conquesting terms in the next flight to directly target the growth shortfall, while preserving the brand-defense spend that is clearly protecting share.

Want me to model a revised budget split for the next campaign based on this read?