How Fittes Got More From Meta Without Increasing Spend

The Account Had a Structural Problem

Fittes is a home goods brand that sells custom air covers and air registers direct-to-consumer. The Meta account had been running for a few years. Performance had plateaued. When QRY reviewed the account, three structural problems stood out.

Prospecting and remarketing were doing the same job. The same creative strategy was running to cold audiences and warm audiences. Conversion campaigns, the ones explicitly designed to drive purchases, were generating limited revenue. The budget didn't reflect what was actually working.

The account treated all buyers the same. Fittes sells to two meaningfully different customers: DIY homeowners doing a renovation, and professionals (interior designers, HVAC contractors, builders) who purchase at volume. These two audiences have different timelines, different questions, different creative needs, and very different value to the business. They were being reached with identical campaigns.

The funnel was too strict. The Meta campaigns were set up with multiple stages that required the user to engage with each stage. In a home goods category where the purchase decision often starts with inspiration and ends with a project timeline, that friction compounds at every step.

What Changed

Audience architecture was rebuilt around two distinct buyers. QRY restructured campaigns around the DIY/professional split, with separate creative briefs for each. Prospecting creative for homeowners led with the transformation — what the space looks like after. Professional-facing campaigns led with spec-level product information and the kind of proof that earns trust from someone choosing products for a client's project. This changed what the creative team was briefed to produce, how success was measured, and which landing page experiences campaigns pointed toward.

Budget shifted toward prospecting. Prospecting was driving the majority of Meta's revenue. Remarketing was delivering limited incremental revenue. QRY reallocated the majority of remarketing budget into prospecting, keeping a remarketing allocation only for key promotional windows. This freed up spend to work harder at the top of the funnel, where new customer acquisition actually happens.

Value-based optimization introduced. Rather than optimizing for purchase volume (any purchase), QRY introduced value-based bidding. This instructs Meta's algorithm to optimize toward higher-value transactions. For a brand where a professional buyer can represent an order many times larger than a typical DIY purchase, this changes what the algorithm is selecting for at the impression level.

Prospecting exclusions tightened. New visitor rate from Meta was running below where it should be for a prospecting-heavy account. Tightening exclusions within prospecting campaigns reduced wasted impressions on existing customers and improved the share of spend reaching genuinely new buyers.

Monthly incrementality program launched. Rather than optimizing against Meta's reported attribution, QRY launched a monthly Conversion Lift Study — a structured test to measure how much revenue Meta was actually driving versus claiming credit for. The program runs monthly to give Fittes a defensible read on true incremental contribution.

The Results

Not because Meta changed. Because the structure did.

The Lesson

Some underperforming Meta accounts aren't a creative problem or a platform problem. They're a structure problem.

The account was spending real money pushing buyers through a funnel that asked too much of them, reaching audiences that weren't differentiated, and optimizing for signals that didn't reflect how the business actually creates value.

Better creative would have moved the needle at the margins. Rebuilding the structural logic — audience separation, budget reallocation, value-based optimization, incrementality measurement — changed the whole equation.

That's the difference between optimizing what exists and rebuilding what should exist.