Analysis overview and configuration
| Parameter | Value | _row |
|---|---|---|
| min_spend_threshold | 100 | min_spend_threshold |
| roas_target | 3 | roas_target |
| cpa_target | 50 | cpa_target |
| diminishing_returns | TRUE | diminishing_returns |
| budget_optimization | TRUE | budget_optimization |
| confidence_level | 0.95 | confidence_level |
This analysis evaluates the efficiency of 11 digital marketing campaigns across four channels (social, search, influencer, media) to determine which should be scaled, paused, or eliminated. The objective is to optimize budget allocation by identifying which campaigns deliver the strongest return on ad spend (ROAS) and cost-efficiency metrics across the full conversion funnel.
The portfolio's 1.4 ROAS masks severe underperformance across most campaigns. Social media dominates spend allocation (45% of
Data preprocessing and column mapping
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Initial Rows | 308 |
| Final Rows | 308 |
| Rows Removed | 0 |
| Retention Rate | 100% |
This section documents the data preprocessing pipeline for the marketing ad spend ROAS efficiency analysis. It shows that all 308 observations (representing campaign-level metrics across 11 campaigns and 4 channels) were retained without any cleaning or filtering, indicating either pristine source data or minimal data quality issues. Understanding preprocessing integrity is critical for validating whether downstream ROAS calculations and channel performance rankings are based on complete, unbiased datasets.
The perfect retention rate indicates the preprocessing pipeline accepted all observations as valid for ROAS efficiency analysis. This means the 11 campaigns and 4 channel-level aggregations reflect the complete dataset without exclusions. However, the absence of any transformations or outlier treatment raises questions about whether extreme values (e.g., facebook_lal's 0.11 ROAS or youtube_blogger's 3.77 ROAS) were validated or simply
| Finding | Value |
|---|---|
| Overall ROAS | 1.4x (target: 3x) |
| Total Ad Spend | $30,590,880 |
| Total Revenue | $42,889,366 |
| Campaigns Above Target | 1 of 11 |
| Best Channel | influencer |
| Best Campaign | youtube_blogger |
| Campaigns to Scale | 1 |
| Campaigns to Kill | 5 |
This analysis evaluates whether the $30.6M marketing portfolio achieved its return-on-ad-spend (ROAS) objectives. The overall 1.4x ROAS represents the aggregate efficiency across 11 campaigns spanning four channels. Understanding this performance gap is critical for identifying where capital is being deployed effectively versus where it is being wasted.
The portfolio is fundamentally misallocated. While total revenue of $42.9M exceeds spend, the 1.4x return indicates significant inefficiency. The influencer channel demonstrates the
ROAS performance ranked by campaign_name — identify which campaigns to scale, monitor, pause, or kill
This section ranks all 11 campaigns by Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) to identify performance distribution and prioritize budget allocation decisions. It directly addresses the core analysis objective: determining which campaigns justify continued investment, require optimization, or should be discontinued based on revenue efficiency relative to spend.
The portfolio is heavily skewed toward underperforming campaigns. While the overall ROAS of 1.4 appears marginally positive, 91% of campaigns fall below target, and 45% warrant elimination. The single high-performer (youtube_blogger at
Channel-level ROAS comparison — which advertising channels are most efficient
This section evaluates advertising channel efficiency by comparing return on ad spend (ROAS) across four distinct channels. It identifies which channels deliver the strongest revenue per dollar spent, enabling data-driven budget allocation decisions and highlighting performance gaps against the 3x ROAS target.
The channel portfolio reveals stark efficiency disparities. Influencer marketing delivers nearly 3x the ROAS of social media, yet remains below target. Social channels—representing the largest spend concentration—underperform significantly, suggesting either misaligned targeting, creative fatigue, or
Marketing funnel efficiency by category — CTR, lead rate, and conversion rate analysis
This section isolates funnel performance by channel to identify where conversion leakage occurs—from initial impressions through clicks, leads, and final orders. Understanding these stage-by-stage metrics reveals whether underperformance stems from audience reach (CTR), lead quality (conversion rate), or cost efficiency (CPA), directly supporting the ROAS efficiency analysis.
The data reveals a conversion-rate bottleneck in social and search channels. While social achieves reasonable click volume, it fails to convert leads into orders efficiently. Influ
Spend vs. revenue scatter chart — identify campaigns with diminishing returns or outsized efficiency
This section visualizes the relationship between ad spend and revenue generated across all 11 campaigns to identify which investments are profitable versus those experiencing diminishing returns. By plotting spend against revenue with a break-even reference line, it reveals whether campaigns are generating positive returns and highlights efficiency outliers—critical for portfolio optimization.
The portfolio's 1.4x ROAS masks a bifurcated performance landscape. While influencer channels demonstrate exceptional efficiency, social media campaigns consume 45% of budget ($13.
Full campaign_name scorecard with all performance metrics
| campaign_name | category | total_spend | total_revenue | roas | ctr | cpc | cpl | cpa | conv_rate | recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| youtube_blogger | influencer | 4.058e+06 | 15311433 | 3.77 | 1.03 | 9.02 | 408.6 | 2120 | 0.4253 | Scale |
| facebook_retargeting | social | 2.665e+05 | 536919 | 2.01 | 3.067 | 8.9 | 526.6 | 2467 | 0.3606 | Pause |
| google_hot | search | 1.2e+06 | 2205747 | 1.84 | 1.945 | 13.33 | 654.7 | 4270 | 0.3121 | Pause |
| instagram_tier1 | social | 2.565e+06 | 4544124 | 1.77 | 0.359 | 9.5 | 386.8 | 3384 | 0.2808 | Pause |
| instagram_blogger | influencer | 4.247e+06 | 5808454 | 1.37 | 0.879 | 14.16 | 606.1 | 3861 | 0.3667 | Pause |
| banner_partner | media | 5.027e+06 | 6152960 | 1.22 | 0.039 | 11.97 | 495.3 | 3210 | 0.3729 | Pause |
| facebook_tier1 | social | 2.565e+06 | 2396412 | 0.93 | 0.381 | 10.69 | 725.5 | 5411 | 0.1975 | Kill |
| facebOOK_tier2 | social | 4.694e+06 | 3463306 | 0.74 | 0.474 | 14.23 | 556.9 | 6822 | 0.2085 | Kill |
| google_wide | search | 2.26e+06 | 1499318 | 0.66 | 0.355 | 9.42 | 428.6 | 4132 | 0.2279 | Kill |
| instagram_tier2 | social | 1.066e+06 | 670460 | 0.63 | 0.37 | 2.09 | 102.8 | 3406 | 0.0614 | Kill |
| facebook_lal | social | 2.642e+06 | 300233 | 0.11 | 0.945 | 22.01 | 1384 | 8986 | 0.245 | Kill |
This section provides a side-by-side performance scorecard comparing all 11 campaigns across critical efficiency metrics (ROAS, CTR, CPC, CPL, CPA, conversion rate). Sorted by ROAS descending, it enables rapid identification of high-performing outliers versus underperformers, directly supporting the analysis objective of evaluating ad spend efficiency and ROI optimization.
The scorecard reveals a portfolio heavily weighted toward underperforming channels. While influencer campaigns demonstrate 2.54x channel-level ROAS, social media's scale (54
Actionable budget allocation recommendations — Scale, Monitor, Pause, or Kill for each campaign_name
| campaign_name | category | total_spend | roas | recommendation | spend_share_pct | priority | roas_label |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| youtube_blogger | influencer | 4.058e+06 | 3.773 | Scale | 13.3 | 1 | 3.8x |
| facebook_retargeting | social | 2.665e+05 | 2.015 | Pause | 13.3 | 3 | 2x |
| google_hot | search | 1.2e+06 | 1.838 | Pause | 13.3 | 3 | 1.8x |
| instagram_tier1 | social | 2.565e+06 | 1.771 | Pause | 13.3 | 3 | 1.8x |
| instagram_blogger | influencer | 4.247e+06 | 1.367 | Pause | 13.3 | 3 | 1.4x |
| banner_partner | media | 5.027e+06 | 1.224 | Pause | 13.3 | 3 | 1.2x |
| facebook_tier1 | social | 2.565e+06 | 0.9343 | Kill | 13.3 | 4 | 0.9x |
| facebOOK_tier2 | social | 4.694e+06 | 0.7378 | Kill | 13.3 | 4 | 0.7x |
| google_wide | search | 2.26e+06 | 0.6633 | Kill | 13.3 | 4 | 0.7x |
| instagram_tier2 | social | 1.066e+06 | 0.6289 | Kill | 13.3 | 4 | 0.6x |
| facebook_lal | social | 2.642e+06 | 0.1136 | Kill | 13.3 | 4 | 0.1x |
This section identifies which campaigns warrant budget reallocation based on ROAS performance relative to profitability thresholds. By categorizing campaigns into Scale, Pause, and Kill buckets, it provides a structured framework for optimizing the $30.6M ad spend portfolio and improving overall efficiency from the current 1.4x ROAS baseline.
The portfolio exhibits severe concentration risk and inefficiency. Five campaigns are destroying value by spending more than they generate, while a single influencer campaign drives disproportionate returns. This 10:1 performance ratio indicates fundamental issues in campaign targeting, creative quality, or channel selection across social and search categories—not merely budget allocation