Premium designer wallpaper brand operating across the US, Australia, and UK — three currencies, three distinct customer profiles, one product catalogue that includes both $2 samples and $400 full rolls. Growing revenue 62% year-on-year required treating each market as its own entity with its own performance targets.
This brand designs and sells premium wallpaper — distinctive prints, grasscloth textures, murals — at price points that reflect the quality. Full rolls range from $30 to $400+. But the catalogue also includes free sample options and peel-and-stick alternatives, creating a wide spread in average order value within the same product range.
Managing three separate Google Ads accounts across the US, Australia, and UK meant dealing with three different currencies, three different audience intent profiles, and three different profitability thresholds. The US was the volume market. Australia was punching above its weight. The UK was still building brand awareness and couldn't be held to the same ROAS targets as more mature markets.
The core tension was product mix: if Shopping campaigns treat a $2 sample order the same as a $300 full-roll purchase, the conversion data becomes misleading — the algorithm optimises toward the easiest sales, not the most profitable ones. This is a structural problem that shows up as a performance ceiling.
Established separate ROAS targets per region based on maturity and margin profile — AU at 6x+ (highest demand density), US at 4x+ (volume market), UK at a lower development threshold. Blended targets across markets obscure what's actually working where.
Used custom_attribute0 to label every product as High Performer, Low Performer, or No-Index — enabling separate Shopping campaigns and bid strategies per product tier. This prevented low-converting sample products from diluting conversion signals for high-value full-roll campaigns.
Built dedicated Shopping campaigns for the highest-potential product collections (Designers range, Top Performers) separate from the general catalogue. Concentrating spend on proven collections delivered a 4x revenue jump in the Designers campaign within a single reporting period.
Identified breakout products through performance data — specific prints delivering 4,000%+ ROAS — and concentrated budget toward these proven converters rather than spreading evenly across the full catalogue. When a product has demonstrated buyer appetite, it earns more of the budget.
Year-on-year (Jan 2025 vs Jan 2026), combined revenue across all three markets grew 62% — from the same product catalogue, with targeted increases in spend rather than blanket budget uplift. Australia outperformed, the US scaled, and the UK continued building toward profitability.
| Channel | Revenue | ROAS | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brand Search (AU) | A$10,363 | 71.9x | A$144 spend · 99% impression share |
| Performance Max — Top Performers | A$7,289 | 3.33x | Highest volume driver |
| Shopping — Designers Collection | A$11,716 | — | 4x jump after campaign launch (US) |
| Non-Brand Search | A$30 | 0.14x | Early stage — development priority |
When you manage three markets from a single blended performance view, you end up with targets that are wrong for all of them — too aggressive for the developing market, too conservative for the leading one. Separating AU, US, and UK into distinct performance frameworks let each market run at its own pace.
The AU result — from 3.06x to 7.92x ROAS year-on-year — came from applying market-specific targets and product-level segmentation. The US result — $81,133 revenue, +45% YoY — came from collection-based campaigns that concentrated spend on proven sellers. Neither would have happened if both markets were being managed to the same ROAS number.
The Gap Analysis runs the same diagnostic as this case study — across your account, in 5 business days.