Atlas Homes

Interior Design / Renovation← All clients

Media buying

2026-09-18 → 2026-10-17 · $50,280.20 across 3 campaigns · target $92.09 per result

Targets are the median of 3 other Atlas Interior Design / Renovation accounts over 90 days.

RENO RETREAT 7.0 FORM

Unclassified

$22,608.48 · 138 results · 17 active days · freq 1.5

Cost per 1,000 shown

$70.61

target $58.31

At target, cost per result would be $135.30

bottleneck

Click-through rate

1.64%

target 3.52%

At target, cost per result would be $76.57

Cost per click

$4.30

target $1.66

Click to result

2.62%

target 1.97%

Cost per result

$163.83

target $92.09

Click-through rate is the binding constraint: bringing it to target is worth $87.26 per result. Whether the creative stops anyone. This is a creative problem, not a budget one.

Moves available

Pause itnow
Pause the ad. It has had a fair run and is spending without converting.
$163.83 against a $138.13 ceiling, on $22608.48.
Baseline: 45% · Of 20 campaign-weeks that spent real money and produced nothing, 11 produced a result the next week without anyone changing it.
Expected: Stops the leak. $22608.48 has produced $163.83 results. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Pausing narrows what the system has to work with. If most ads are paused, the account relearns from a thinner base.
Fix attention before budgetnow
Produce new angles rather than adding spend. The SOP's order of impact puts creative strategy first and settings last.
Click-through rate is well off benchmark: 1.64% against 3.52%.
Expected: Cost per result $163.83 → $76.57 if this alone reached benchmark. (arithmetic — substituting the target into the funnel identity)
If it goes wrong: Production time, and a new angle can be worse than the one it replaced. Cheaper to find out at low spend.
Widen the ad bankwhen there is time
0 live against roughly 22 for this spend. Fill empty cells in the creative matrix — new angles, not new edits.
Near-copies are treated as one ad, so more spend behind fewer angles reaches the same people more often.
Expected: Lower cost per result over weeks, by giving the system more kinds of person to win cheaply. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Production cost, and a wider bank spreads spend thinner — each ad takes longer to prove itself.

23/9 - Reno Retreat - LP

Unclassified

$16,699.19 · 115 results · 12 active days · freq 1.4

Cost per 1,000 shown

$68.04

target $58.31

At target, cost per result would be $124.44

bottleneck

Click-through rate

1.71%

target 3.52%

At target, cost per result would be $70.52

Cost per click

$3.99

target $1.66

Click to result

2.74%

target 1.97%

Cost per result

$145.21

target $92.09

Click-through rate is the binding constraint: bringing it to target is worth $74.69 per result. Whether the creative stops anyone. This is a creative problem, not a budget one.

Moves available

Pause itnow
Pause the ad. It has had a fair run and is spending without converting.
$145.21 against a $138.13 ceiling, on $16699.19.
Baseline: 45% · Of 20 campaign-weeks that spent real money and produced nothing, 11 produced a result the next week without anyone changing it.
Expected: Stops the leak. $16699.19 has produced $145.21 results. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Pausing narrows what the system has to work with. If most ads are paused, the account relearns from a thinner base.
Fix attention before budgetnow
Produce new angles rather than adding spend. The SOP's order of impact puts creative strategy first and settings last.
Click-through rate is well off benchmark: 1.71% against 3.52%.
Expected: Cost per result $145.21 → $70.52 if this alone reached benchmark. (arithmetic — substituting the target into the funnel identity)
If it goes wrong: Production time, and a new angle can be worse than the one it replaced. Cheaper to find out at low spend.
Widen the ad bankwhen there is time
0 live against roughly 16 for this spend. Fill empty cells in the creative matrix — new angles, not new edits.
Near-copies are treated as one ad, so more spend behind fewer angles reaches the same people more often.
Expected: Lower cost per result over weeks, by giving the system more kinds of person to win cheaply. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Production cost, and a wider bank spreads spend thinner — each ad takes longer to prove itself.

RENORETREAT8.0

Unclassified

$10,972.53 · 69 results · 10 active days · freq 1.5

Cost per 1,000 shown

$102.11

target $58.31

At target, cost per result would be $90.81

bottleneck

Click-through rate

1.63%

target 3.52%

At target, cost per result would be $73.80

Cost per click

$6.26

target $1.66

Click to result

3.94%

target 1.97%

Cost per result

$159.02

target $92.09

Click-through rate is the binding constraint: bringing it to target is worth $85.22 per result. Whether the creative stops anyone. This is a creative problem, not a budget one.

Moves available

Pause itnow
Pause the ad. It has had a fair run and is spending without converting.
$159.02 against a $138.13 ceiling, on $10972.53.
Baseline: 45% · Of 20 campaign-weeks that spent real money and produced nothing, 11 produced a result the next week without anyone changing it.
Expected: Stops the leak. $10972.53 has produced $159.02 results. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Pausing narrows what the system has to work with. If most ads are paused, the account relearns from a thinner base.
Fix attention before budgetnow
Produce new angles rather than adding spend. The SOP's order of impact puts creative strategy first and settings last.
Click-through rate is well off benchmark: 1.63% against 3.52%.
Expected: Cost per result $159.02 → $73.80 if this alone reached benchmark. (arithmetic — substituting the target into the funnel identity)
If it goes wrong: Production time, and a new angle can be worse than the one it replaced. Cheaper to find out at low spend.
Widen the ad bankwhen there is time
0 live against roughly 10 for this spend. Fill empty cells in the creative matrix — new angles, not new edits.
Near-copies are treated as one ad, so more spend behind fewer angles reaches the same people more often.
Expected: Lower cost per result over weeks, by giving the system more kinds of person to win cheaply. (from the media buying SOP)
If it goes wrong: Production cost, and a wider bank spreads spend thinner — each ad takes longer to prove itself.

Percentages marked baseline come from this portfolio’s own campaign history — what happened to campaigns in the same state when nobody intervened. They are the bar a move has to clear, not the move’s own success rate. Once enough decisions are logged they are replaced by worked, which counts decisions actually taken.

Nothing here changes the account. The Meta connection reads only — it could not pause an ad if it tried — so every move is for a person to make. Frequency is impressions over summed daily reach, which runs a little high against Ads Manager’s own figure.