Revenue up 117%in a marketthat had never heard of them.
GymBeam sells supplements and sportswear across more than fifteen countries. In 2020 it entered Poland with no brand recognition, into a category owned by established retailers and price comparison sites. Below is what the account looked like two years later, and the month the target changed.
- +117.11%
- revenue growth
- +510%
- growth in monthly orders
- +73.20%
- more people on the site
- +28.35%
- higher conversion rate
Three problems, and one of them arrived uninvited.
A market that had never heard of them
Entering Poland meant starting from nothing: no recognition, no search demand for the brand, and nobody looking for it by name. Every sale had to be earned from someone comparing options rather than returning.
The gyms closed weeks later
The launch landed just before lockdowns. Demand did not disappear, it moved: people trained at home and bought online, and the whole category re-sorted itself in a matter of weeks. Plans written for the old behaviour were worth very little.
Hands stopped being enough
Three thousand products and a growing account cannot be steered by manually adjusting campaigns. Past a certain catalogue size, human attention becomes the bottleneck and the slowest-moving part of the system decides the result.
Four moves. In this order.
Brand and non-brand split apart
Product campaigns were divided into branded and non-branded, with search campaigns on category phrases alongside. Reporting them together hides the only thing worth knowing at market entry: how much of the result comes from people who already wanted you.
The feed wired into the ads, refreshed four times a day
Prices and availability fed straight into the campaigns rather than sitting in a separate system. Dynamic search ads ran off the indexed pages. An ad for a product that just went out of stock costs money twice: once for the click, once for the trust.
Smart Shopping replaced the legacy setup
Older product listing campaigns gave way to Smart Shopping, and profitability data went into the Google Ads panel itself so the system optimised against the business number instead of a proxy for it.
The target changed from revenue to profit
In July 2021 the campaigns stopped optimising for revenue and started optimising for return. By October the level was stable and profitable. The study is explicit that the algorithms needed about three months to complete that transition, which is the part most accounts refuse to wait out.
Two Januarys, one year apart. The growth explains itself.
The study compares January 2021, when campaigns optimised for revenue, with January 2022, after they optimised for return. Three figures from that comparison sit below.
These three are not three separate wins, they are one result seen from three sides: 73% more people multiplied by a 28% better conversion rate lands almost exactly on the revenue figure. That is what a growth number looks like when it is explained rather than asserted. The study also reports 510% growth in monthly orders, which does not fit that same arithmetic and so almost certainly covers a different window. It stays in the strip above with its own label, and off this chart, because putting it on one scale with the other three would suggest a link the source does not make.
The move worth copying is the one that took three months.
Nobody can promise you this curve. It depends on your category, your margins and how much room a new market leaves you. What travels is the decision made in July 2021: stop optimising for revenue and start optimising for what you keep. Revenue targets reward the cheapest possible sale, and your P&L does not.
The second half of that decision is the part most accounts skip. Changing the target resets what the system has learned, and the study puts the transition at roughly three months. If you switch and then panic in week three, you pay the full cost of the change and collect none of the benefit. Decide whether you can sit through a quarter before you touch the setting.
This work was delivered by MTA Group, which Zero Fluff Digital is part of, by the same specialists who would work on your account. Every figure here comes from the case study MTA published, republished here with their consent. The reviews behind it are public and verified on Clutch, where clients rate the work rather than the agency describing itself.
Want to know what your ad account is optimising for?
30 minutes, no deck. You get a read on whether your campaigns chase revenue or profit, and what changing that would cost you before it pays.
Book a callNext case studyAudioteka: 7M organic TikTok views in 12 months →