Jewelry & Accessories brand

Jewellery does not behave like the rest of Amazon. Customers browse rather than search, comparison is visual rather than specification-driven, and a large share of demand is gift-led, which means it arrives in concentrated seasonal waves and disappears between them. Advertising strategy has to be built for that pattern rather than fighting it.

Reported advertising performance

Ad sales	$92,915.03
Ad spend	$21,857.85
ACOS	23.52%
Purchases	2,541
Impressions	1,236,219
Clicks	10,737

Reading these numbers

1,236,219 impressions and 10,737 clicks, a click-through rate near 0.87%. That is lower than the food and beverage account in this portfolio and entirely expected: in a visually browsed category, a large share of impressions are served to people comparing many options at a glance. Impression volume here is a discovery cost, not a failure.

23.52% ACOS on $92,915.03 in ad sales. The highest ACOS published on this site, and the correct target for this account. Jewellery carries higher gross margin than grocery or apparel, which means it can support a higher acquisition cost while remaining comfortably profitable.

2,541 purchases from 10,737 clicks, a conversion rate near 24%. For a category where customers compare across many listings before committing, that is a strong number and reflects detail pages doing real work on material specification and photography.

Why the ACOS target is higher here, deliberately

A single ACOS target applied across a portfolio is a mistake, and this account demonstrates why. The apparel brand in this portfolio runs at 17.17% and the food and beverage brand at 19.68%. This one runs at 23.52%, and is the most profitable of the three per advertising dollar, because gross margin in jewellery is substantially higher.

Setting this account a 19% target to make it match the others would have meant cutting bids on terms that were converting profitably, surrendering placement to competitors, and reporting a better-looking number while making less money. The target follows the margin structure of the category, every time.

1. 01Impressions1,236,219

   Times the ads were served

2. ↓ 99.13% did not click
   02Clicks10,737

   0.87% click-through rate

3. ↓ 76.3% of clicks did not convert
   03Purchases2,541

   23.7% conversion from click

Bar lengths use a logarithmic scale. On a linear one, clicks and purchases would be invisible against the impression count. The pale hairline inside each bar marks where that stage would actually end on a linear scale. The figures beside each stage are the reported values.

The shape of this funnel is the category in one picture. A 0.87% click-through rate against 1.2 million impressions looks weak next to the food and beverage account, and is entirely normal for a browsed category. Most of those impressions are served to people comparing many options at a glance. What matters is the 23.7% conversion once someone does click.

Running it across marketplaces

This catalog ran across multiple marketplaces, and the same product does not sell the same way in each. Search terms differ beyond translation: German compound terms behave differently from English phrases, and UK gifting seasonality does not align exactly with US. Keyword research was done per marketplace rather than translated, and budgets were paced against each marketplace’s own seasonal curve.

Seasonality as the governing constraint

Gift-led categories concentrate a disproportionate share of annual revenue into a handful of weeks. Budget was built to reflect that: aggressive in the run-up to gifting peaks where inventory supported it, restrained between them rather than spending evenly across a year that does not sell evenly.

Screenshot placeholder

Marketplace-level breakdown showing how spend and returns distributed across the regions this catalog served.

Suggested asset: Multi-marketplace advertising report or Xnurta cross-marketplace view · 16/10

Related capability

Amazon PPC management and Seller Central management.