# Case Study: What Happens When Growth Is Deliberately Chasing New Customers, Not Just Revenue | Crank Source: https://wearecrank.com/case-studies/beauty-skincare-acquisition-growth-2023-2025 A 38% revenue year that came with a falling blended return, and the separation that shows why that's the growth working, not a decline. --- ![Beauty and skincare case study: What Happens When Growth Is Deliberately Chasing New Customers, Not Just Revenue](/images/case-studies/lash-growth-serum.png?dpl=dpl_2uJjggmfov9ibhArygujfRBb3pax) Beauty & Skincare Case Study, 2023–2025 # What Happens When Growth Is Deliberately Chasing New Customers, Not Just Revenue A 38% revenue year that came with a falling blended return, and the separation that shows why that's the growth working, not a decline. Challenge A premium eyelash and brow brand in a deliberate growth phase saw its headline return on spend falling, the kind of pairing that, read on the blended figure alone, looks exactly like a decline, and is the standard way a working acquisition strategy gets cancelled by someone looking at a single number. Revenue grew 38 per cent to £1.91 million on 75 per cent more spend, while blended return on spend fell 21 per cent to 4.22 in the same year. The newsletter audience converted at 19.56 per cent against 1.45 for cold Meta targeting, same week, same offer. Approach Run creative format tests as controlled, same-week comparisons rather than gut calls, track the known audience against cold traffic directly, and report the reasons underneath the blended figure rather than the figure alone. Outcome User-generated content returned 81 per cent better than standard creative, confirmed on a repeat test. The blended fall was explained rather than left hanging: Meta conversion moved from 5.0 to 4.0 per cent as prospecting rose, and Google click costs rose 43 per cent under discounting pressure, and in one comparison, click cost rose 102 per cent while the cost of a new customer fell 48. 01 ## A known audience, worth protecting The existing newsletter audience converted at 19.56 per cent during a seasonal sale. General Meta targeting for the same brand, the same week, the same offer, converted at 1.45 per cent, a same-week, same-offer comparison rather than an inferred effect, which makes the size of the gap hard to attribute to anything except audience warmth itself. 02 ## Creative tested properly, twice User-generated content was tested head-to-head against standard branded creative across a seasonal event: 2.8 times spend against 2.5 on existing customers, and 1.0 against 0.5 on prospecting. The same comparison, run again later, confirmed it, user-generated content returned 81 per cent better than standard creative. Click price, on the other hand, told an unreliable story. In one comparison of creative formats, the cost of a click rose 102 per cent, and the cost of a new customer actually fell 48 per cent over the same period. A doubled click price did not mean a worse result; the two numbers moved in opposite directions. 03 ## A site issue, caught in the reporting During a peak trading period, conversion rate fell 36 per cent against the prior year despite traffic holding up, the account's own reporting traced most of the affected sales to a site issue concentrated in the morning hours, rather than a demand or targeting problem. 04 ## What the growth actually cost Across the year, revenue grew 38 per cent to £1.91 million on 75 per cent more spend, with purchases up around 41 per cent. Blended return on spend fell 21 per cent, to 4.22\. The account review explains why rather than leaving it unexplained: Meta conversion rate moved from 5.0 to 4.0 per cent as more prospecting campaigns ran to bring in new customers, while Google click costs rose 43 per cent under competitive discounting pressure. Paid media rose from 48 to 67 per cent of total revenue over the same period. Read on the blended figure alone, this looks like a worse year. Read against what the account actually did, deliberately spend more to win new customers, who are always more expensive than reselling to existing ones, it's a growth strategy producing exactly the arithmetic it should. 05 ## What explaining the blend, rather than reporting it alone, changed Once the reasons underneath the blended figure were reported alongside it, creative tested as controlled comparisons, the known audience tracked against cold traffic directly, a falling headline return stopped reading as an unexplained decline. It became a specific, evidenced trade: more spend deliberately going toward new customers, who cost more to win than existing customers cost to resell to, which pulls a blended figure down by arithmetic rather than by anything having gone wrong. 06 ## What this means for you Blended return falls when you deliberately buy more new customers. That is arithmetic, not decline, but only if you can show the separation. ## A year of deliberate growth, in the numbers that explain it 19.56%vs1.45% Conversion rate, known audience vs. cold traffic +81% Return on spend, user-generated content vs. standard creative +38% revenue/\-21% ROAS Same year, growth pulling the blended figure down +102% CPC/\-48% CAC Click cost and acquisition cost moving in opposite directions Figures drawn from Crank's own managed-account data and account reviews for this beauty and skincare retailer, 2023–2025\. Client not named. 2025 figures verified against the reporting database. ## Want to know what this looks like in your own account? These findings came from asking straightforward questions before any budget moved. We're happy to do the same for yours. [ Talk to Wearecrank](https://wa.me/447457416922?text=Help%20my%20business)[Get in touch](/contact) [← Back to all case studies](/case-studies)