pilotads

Results

Teardowns: what broke, what we fixed, what moved

No trophy percentages without mechanics. Each teardown names the failure, the specific fixes in the order we ran them, and the lift, with figures kept inside believable benchmark ranges. Clients stay anonymized; the numbers are representative of the engagement pattern.

−38%Median CPA change, first 90 days
21%Median waste found per audit
€6.4MSpend managed, 12 months

Representative aggregates across 34 current engagements.

How to read a Pilotads teardown

Every teardown follows the same skeleton, because every engagement does: what was broken, the fixes in the order we ran them, and the lift with benchmark context. The order is the content. Measurement repairs come first (all three stories), search-term hygiene second, structure third, bidding last. Reverse it and each later step optimizes against data the earlier steps were about to change.

The benchmark context keeps us honest. A €96 demo CPA reads differently once you know the business-services median CPL is $93.69; a 3.4 ROAS means more against the 2.87 ecommerce average. Numbers without their reference class are marketing; with it, they are results. The same discipline runs through the full process and the guides, which document the exact routines these stories apply.

What the three stories have in common

  • Each started with the 90-point audit, which found the structural failure before any strategy talk
  • Each fixed measurement before touching bids: two Consent Mode v2 repairs, one conversion reconciliation
  • Each added themed negative lists on a weekly cadence: 412, 267, and 198 negatives respectively
  • None needed new landing pages, new creative budgets, or a platform migration

Questions about these results

Because naming clients trades their competitive information for our marketing, and the accounts contain spend levels and margins competitors would love. The figures are kept representative of the engagement pattern, within published benchmark ranges, and the mechanics are described exactly. What generalizes is the method, never the name.

They are representative of accounts that arrived with real structural problems. An account that already runs weekly search-term reviews and clean measurement will see far less headroom. That is why the audit comes first: it tells you which of these patterns your account actually has, priced in euros, before anyone commits.

Because the audit is where the leak gets priced and the fix order gets set. Measurement repairs come before structure, structure before bidding. All three teardowns follow that sequence, and the one time-consuming surprise in each was found in the audit rather than mid-engagement, which is the point of doing it first.

Across current engagements, the median account improved CPA by 38% in its first 90 days against its own baseline. The spread is wide: the industrial account took 8 weeks to reach its number, the SaaS overlap case needed 12. Expect the first month to be rebuild work with flat results, then compounding.

Want your account to be the next teardown?

The pattern in all three stories started with the €1,900 audit. Yours would too.

Get a proposal