CASE STUDY 01 · MOROCCAN CLOTHING BRAND · COD
Scaling Meta Ads on Cash on Delivery without letting CPA slip.
Goal: scale website purchase volume without letting acquisition cost deteriorate. My approach: test multiple ad sets at controlled budgets, stop weak tests quickly, and concentrate spend on combinations that held CPA as volume increased.
Full case study PDF (6 pages)- Morocco
- Cash on Delivery
- Meta Ads
- Amounts in USD
WHERE THE SCALE CAME FROM
Three ad sets drove 80% of the result.
The top three ad sets generated 161 of 202 purchases on 67.1% of spend. The rest of the account was for learning — cheaply.
FROM CONTROLLED TESTING TO CONCENTRATED SCALE
The decision logic, step by step.
- 01
Test
Most tests ran at $5.76/day: a controlled environment to compare conversion efficiency.
- 02
Stop waste early
14 zero-purchase tests used $36.99 in total — 5.0% of spend. Failures never absorbed scale budget.
- 03
Concentrate
Top 3: 161 of 202 purchases (79.7%) on 67.1% of spend, $3.11 CPA vs $5.99.
- 04
Scale validated winners
The main winner: 67 purchases at $2.88 on $192.76, budget 3.8x the test budget.
ANONYMIZED SCORECARD
All 24 ad sets in the account.
| AD SET | SPEND | PURCH. | CPA | IMPR. | CLICKS | CTR | READ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | $192.76 | 67 | $2.88 | 51,027 | 2,527 | 4.95% | Core winner |
| 3 | $170.74 | 55 | $3.10 | 39,016 | 1,715 | 4.40% | Core winner |
| 2 | $137.63 | 39 | $3.53 | 31,716 | 1,716 | 5.41% | Core winner |
| 18 | $82.79 | 15 | $5.52 | 17,461 | 816 | 4.67% | Volume / higher CPA |
| 22 | $50.85 | 13 | $3.91 | 7,815 | 357 | 4.57% | Volume / higher CPA |
| 1 | $38.52 | 6 | $6.42 | 4,263 | 215 | 5.04% | Small converting test |
| 23 | $13.73 | 2 | $6.87 | 2,971 | 148 | 4.98% | Small converting test |
| 20 | $12.50 | 3 | $4.17 | 2,899 | 120 | 4.14% | Small converting test |
| 5 | $5.25 | 1 | $5.25 | 886 | 37 | 4.18% | Small converting test |
| 21 | $5.18 | — | — | 1,243 | 59 | 4.75% | No-purchase test |
| 17 | $5.05 | 1 | $5.05 | 936 | 35 | 3.74% | Small converting test |
| 19 | $4.64 | — | — | 1,089 | 63 | 5.79% | No-purchase test |
| 12 | $3.22 | — | — | 322 | 15 | 4.66% | No-purchase test |
| 14 | $2.94 | — | — | 305 | 10 | 3.28% | No-purchase test |
| 13 | $2.41 | — | — | 249 | 8 | 3.21% | No-purchase test |
| 15 | $2.22 | — | — | 392 | 13 | 3.32% | No-purchase test |
| 10 | $2.20 | — | — | 296 | 14 | 4.73% | No-purchase test |
| 11 | $2.14 | — | — | 230 | 10 | 4.35% | No-purchase test |
| 9 | $2.13 | — | — | 344 | 10 | 2.91% | No-purchase test |
| 6 | $2.11 | — | — | 280 | 8 | 2.86% | No-purchase test |
| 16 | $2.11 | — | — | 307 | 15 | 4.89% | No-purchase test |
| 8 | $2.04 | — | — | 307 | 13 | 4.23% | No-purchase test |
| 7 | $1.94 | — | — | 315 | 9 | 2.86% | No-purchase test |
| 4 | $1.71 | — | — | 271 | 11 | 4.06% | No-purchase test |
Original ad-set names removed; IDs 1–24 preserve the order shown in Ads Manager. Paused status is not used as a performance label: an ad set can be paused after a successful test/scale cycle.
AD SET 24 · SCALE-STAGE WINNER
67 purchases at a $2.88 CPA.
Its $22.16/day budget, about 3.8x the recurring test budget, is a scale-stage allocation rather than an exploratory test.
- purchases
- 67
- CPA
- $2.88
- spend
- $192.76
- impressions
- 51,027
- reach
- 32,110
- link clicks
- 2,527
- budget / day
- $22.16
- vs test budget
- 3.8x
SCALING QUALITY
Why I did not optimize for CTR alone.
Two high-volume ad sets generated almost the same number of link clicks, but very different purchase outcomes. This is why I evaluate the full funnel before scaling.
| METRIC | AD SET 2 | AD SET 3 | CHANGE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $137.63 | $170.74 | +24.1% |
| Link clicks | 1,716 | 1,715 | −0.1% |
| Purchases | 39 | 55 | +41.0% |
| CPA | $3.53 | $3.10 | −12.2% |
| ROAS | 8.16x | 9.37x | +14.8% |
| Purchase CVR | 2.44% | 3.16% | +29.5% |
| Link CTR | 5.41% | 4.40% | −18.7% |
| CPM | $4.34 | $4.38 | +0.9% |
WHAT THIS TELLS ME
- Nearly identical click volume1,716 vs 1,715 link clicks — traffic volume was essentially the same.
- More orders from the same trafficAd Set 3 produced 55 purchases vs 39: +41.0% purchase volume.
- Better unit economicsCPA improved 12.2% while purchase ROAS increased 14.8%.
- Post-click quality mattered moreLower CTR, but 29.5% higher purchase CVR. I favor the stronger business outcome over the vanity metric.
- More attributed valueAbout $1,600 vs $1,123 in Meta-attributed purchase value. In COD, this remains attributed order value, not collected cash.
EVIDENCE
Meta Ads Manager screenshots.
Anonymized only to protect the brand and campaign structure. Performance metrics are unchanged. Click to enlarge.
DECISION FRAMEWORK
What this account demonstrates.
- 01
I protect test capital.
Small budgets to collect enough signal without letting weak ad sets consume meaningful spend.
- 02
I stop weak patterns.
Only about 5% of spend went to zero-purchase tests, keeping the account focused on validated demand.
- 03
I scale on purchase economics.
Top three: almost 80% of purchases on 67% of spend, at a $3.11 blended CPA.
- 04
I look beyond CTR.
One ad set with lower CTR converted materially better — better CPA, better ROAS. Business outcome wins.
- 05
I understand the COD constraint.
Meta purchases are only the acquisition layer. A full COD P&L needs confirmation, delivery, refusals and cash-collected margin.