I manage marketing acquisitions using tROAS, but scaling raises our nCAC. Any insights on rethinking bidding, audience targeting, and value adjustments for Google Shopping?
Hey Steve, I totally get where you’re coming from with the scaling challenges. I’ve been playing around with some tweaks that veer a bit from the usual tROAS approach, and one thing that caught my attention was experimenting with more fluid audience signals. For instance, instead of solely relying on manual bidding adjustments, letting Google’s algorithm dig into cross-channel data to unearth unexpected customer segments felt promising. But I’m wondering if you’ve also thought about weaving in some creative value adjustments that focus not just on top-of-funnel conversions but on reinforcing retention? It might be interesting to see how a little flexibility in audience targeting can help balance out those rising nCAC figures. What’s been your experience with letting device or location data play a bigger role, or have you tried integrating any third-party signals to get a broader view? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this and any experimentations you’ve ventured into!
Based on my experience, a shift towards a hybrid bidding approach has yielded positive results. Rather than relying exclusively on tROAS, I introduced a mix of manual oversight with automated adjustments that focused on creating more refined audience segments. This method involved testing value adjustments based on time windows and device metrics, which helped identify opportunities for cost efficiency even as nCAC increased. My results have consistently shown that combining detailed audience insights with flexible bidding strategies can open up new channels for acquiring validated Google Shopping clients.