Ledisa 360° Audit · Search Account

01Brand vs Non-Brand

How to tell them apart — and how each performs.

The naming convention is consistent: campaigns with ONB ("own brand") in the name are Brand; campaigns with COMP (competitor/category) are Non-Brand. The NAD campaign is a non-brand product line.

Campaign (active)	Segment	Bidding	Spend 14d	Triple Whale rev	Orders	ROAS	CPA
LD_GLP_COMP_US_Search_tCPA(Portfolio)	Non-Brand	Portfolio Target CPA $60	$128,067	$373,744	4,067	2.92	$31.49
LD_GLP_ONB_US_mCPC	Brand	Manual CPC	$2,641	$56,715	680	21.48	$3.88
LD_GLP_ONB_US_Search_REVIEW	Brand	Max Conversions (no target)	$2,598	$2,511	25	0.97	$103.91
LD_GLP_COMP_CAN_Search_tCPA_38	Non-Brand	Target CPA $38	$158	$1,377	25	8.72	$6.32
LD_GLP_COMP_AUS_Search_tCPA_38	Non-Brand	Target CPA $38	$106	$657	11	6.20	$9.64
LD_NAD_COMP_US_Search_tCPA_26	Non-Brand	Target CPA $26	$14	$386	8	28.15	$1.71
LD_GLP_ONB_INT_mCPC (international)	Brand	Manual CPC	<$100	—	—	—	—
LD_GLP_ONB_US_mCPC Max Converisons	Brand	Dormant duplicate — recommend removing from active set	~$0	—	—	—	—

Window May 28 – Jun 10 · Triple Whale last-click (each order credited to the last ad clicked). Spend from Google Ads (the only correct source for cost). The PMax brand/generic campaigns live in the other account — see PMax & Shopping.

6.8%

Brand share of spend

$10.7K of $158K (incl. PMax brand)

11.28

Brand ROAS · Triple Whale

CPA $7.08 · 1,514 orders

3.12

Non-brand ROAS · Triple Whale

CPA $28.74 · 5,131 orders

73.9%

Brand impression share

target ≥90% — money on the table

The headline of this page

Brand returns $21 per dollar on Search (Triple Whale) and still loses 26% of its impressions. Non-brand returns $2.92 per dollar at a $31.49 CPA — well inside the $60 target the bidding engine believes it's missing. Both segments are underfed for the same root cause: Google's own conversion tag only sees ~42% of these orders, so Smart Bidding thinks performance is twice as expensive as it really is.

03Active Ads · Policy & Creative

The ads are the weak link — and the legal one.

All counts below cover active ads in active ad groups and campaigns only (98 ads).

Policy

23 of 98 active ads carry policy flags

21 limited for Clickbait (including the $58.5K/90d Berberine ad) and 2 disapproved with Destination Mismatch + Restricted Drug Terms + Prescription Drug Sale flags. Flagged ads carried $117.7K of the last 90 days' spend. In this category — where regulators are already active — this is the account's largest risk.

Creative

30 active ads rated POOR strength — $92.4K/90d

Concentrated in the highest-volume competitor ad groups (Kind GLP-1 Patches: $62K+). Rebuilding these responsive search ads is the cheapest attack on the 64% rank-lost impression share — better ads raise Ad Rank without raising bids.

Consistency

Conflicting offers running simultaneously

Active ads claim "Summer Sale – Save 30%", "50% off Now", and "Save 50% – trusted by over 130,000 women" at the same time. Pick the live offer, align every ad — inconsistent discounts also feed the Clickbait policy flag. Bonus gap: zero promotion extensions account-wide despite running sale copy.

Waste

$8.8K/30d of measurable bleed

56 keywords + 55 search terms spent >$50 each with zero conversions: informational queries ("berberine benefits" $170), marketplace intent ("glp 1 patches amazon"), typo traffic ("glo1 patches"). Straightforward negative-keyword work.

Campaign	Landing page	Ad groups	Message match
COMP US (non-brand)	myhealthyshape.com/v1g-top5-glp-1-patches	16	Strong — "Top 5" advertorial matches comparison intent
COMP US (berberine ad groups)	myhealthyshape.com/V1f-top5-berberine-patches	3	Strong — ingredient-matched variant
COMP CAN / COMP AUS	myhealthyshape.com/top5-glp-1-patches	14+14	Strong (same advertorial, intl variant)
NAD US	myhealthyshape.com/nad-patches/top-5-ranked	2	Strong
ONB REVIEW (brand)	myhealthyshape.com/ (homepage)	1	Mismatch — people searching "ledisa reviews / is ledisa legit" land on a generic advertorial homepage. See the Reviews proposal below.
ONB mCPC (brand)	tryledisa.com/pages/sp-gm3-glp-patches	1	OK — brand sales page, but on a third domain (tryledisa.com, not ledisa.com), which adds a hop where tracking can break
ONB INT (brand intl)	tryledisa.com/products/glp-1-patches-4	1	OK — product page (this campaign holds the 2 disapproved ads)

05Advertorial Strategy · GLP-1 Hero

One advertorial carries the whole non-brand program. Build three more.

The current funnel: ad → myhealthyshape.com "Top 5 GLP-1 Patches" listicle (Ledisa ranked #1 with an A+ grade and 9.7/10 score, letter-graded competitors, 50%-off CTAs, urgency banners, affiliate-style disclaimer) → tryledisa.com checkout. The format works — comparison-shaped persuasion for comparison-shaped searches — but it's a single point of failure, it leans on Clickbait-flagged headline styles, and one page cannot match every search intent the account buys.

We ran fresh keyword research (Google Keyword Planner, US, June 2026) to back three new advertorial pages — same visual system as the current one, different angles and intents:

Advertorial #2 — "Top 5 Berberine Patches" (full build-out) · Preview the page →

The berberine universe is much bigger and ~3× cheaper per click than the GLP-1 patch universe — and it's where Kind, Gentle and Patched have already moved their naming. The current V1f variant covers 3 ad groups; this deserves a full campaign of its own.

Keyword opportunity (US monthly searches · top-of-page bid range)

Keyword	Searches/mo	Bid range
berberine	450,000	$0.62–1.94
berberine supplement	74,000	$0.75–2.50
berberine for weight loss	40,500	$0.67–3.11
best berberine supplement	12,100	$1.11–3.50
Reference: glp 1 patches	165,000	$2.10–8.72

Angle

"Patch vs pill" — why transdermal berberine beats swallowing capsules (no digestion loss, steady release). Comparison table includes capsule brands, not just patches — a bigger, less contested frame.

Advertorial #3 — "Weight gain after 40" hormonal/editorial angle · Preview the page →

Story-led editorial (not a listicle): cortisol, perimenopause and hormonal weight gain. Low competition, very cheap clicks, perfectly matched to the core buyer (women 35–60), and naturally compliant — the story is about the problem, the patch enters as one part of a routine.

Keyword opportunity

Keyword	Searches/mo	Competition	Bid range
menopause weight gain	5,400	High	$0.29–6.99
perimenopause weight gain	5,400	High	$0.32–7.80
cortisol and belly fat / weight gain	5,800 comb.	Low–Medium	$0.05–2.21
hormonal weight gain	3,800 comb.	Medium	$0.19–8.07
weight loss for women over 40	2,600 comb.	High	$3.27–17.21

Advertorial #4 — "Feel full sooner" appetite-science explainer · Preview the page →

Educational explainer on appetite signals and craving control with structure/function language only — captures the huge appetite-suppressant cluster while staying far from drug claims (important: never use "suppressant" in ad copy — the advertorial frames it as "appetite support").

Keyword opportunity

Keyword	Searches/mo	Bid range
appetite / hunger suppressant	148,000 comb.	$2.04–16.38
natural appetite suppressant	54,200 comb.	$0.29–9.52
how to stop cravings (long-tail cluster)	~8,000	$0.30–4.00

Build plan for all three: reuse the current advertorial's design system (white editorial layout, rating cards, pros/cons, guarantee block) with compliant claim language; each page gets its own campaign so search intent, message and economics stay separated. Pages to be designed and presented for approval before publishing.

06Beyond GLP-1 · The Rest of the Catalog

Nine other products with real search demand — and zero Search presence.

Today the Search account is ~100% GLP-1. But Ledisa sells a full wellness range, and Keyword Planner shows several of these lines have large, cheaper, lower-competition demand than the saturated weight-loss space. Below is a campaign structure for the rest of the catalog, with the landing chosen by search intent: category/commercial queries go to the existing store product pages; problem-aware/educational queries go to advertorials (to be designed, you choose which to build).

Proposed campaign structure — by product line, tiered by opportunity

Volumes & bid ranges: Google Keyword Planner, US, June 2026. Intent column drives the landing choice.

Product line	Anchor keywords (volume/mo)	Intent	Recommended landing	Tier
NAD+ / Longevity	nad supplement (110K), nmn supplement (110K), nad+ supplement (49.5K), nicotinamide riboside (40.5K)	Commercial / category	Store PDP — /nad-patches (buyers know the category) + optional "patch vs pill/IV" advertorial	1 — build first
Dopamine / Focus	nootropics (74K), brain fog (60.5K, low comp), dopamine patch (33.1K, low comp), nootropic supplement (22.2K)	Mixed — "dopamine patch" commercial, "brain fog" problem-aware	Both — /dopamine-patches for category terms + a "beat brain fog" advertorial for problem terms	1 — build first
Unpuff / De-bloat	bloating relief (22–49K, low comp), how to debloat (22K), debloat (14.8K), lose water weight (14.8K)	Problem-aware / educational	Advertorial — "how to beat the bloat" + /unpuff-patches for "debloat patch"	1 — build first
Relax / Cortisol	supplements to reduce cortisol (40.5K), cortisol supplement (22.2K), stress relief supplement (14.8K)	Problem-aware	Advertorial (shares the "cortisol" angle with over-40 advertorial #3) + /relax	2 — test
Sleep	natural sleep aid (27.1K), sleep patch / herbal sleep aid (27.1K). Avoid commodity heads (melatonin 368K, magnesium-for-sleep 110K — cheap CPC but brutal competition)	Category, narrow	Store PDP — /sleep-patches; bid only the patch/natural-aid terms, not the ingredient heads	2 — test
Energy / B12	vitamins for energy (14.8K), b12 benefits (18–27K, low comp, informational), b12 patch	Mostly informational	Store PDP — /energy-patches for "b12 patch / energy patch" only	3 — low priority
Focus · Recovery · Metabolism · Glow Up	thinner Search demand in this set	Mixed	Better served by Shopping / PMax than dedicated Search — see PMax page	3 — low priority

How to build it — one campaign per product line, ad groups by intent

Naming & structure (mirrors the GLP-1 model)

One campaign per line: LD_NAD_COMP_US_Search, LD_DOPA_COMP_US_Search, LD_BLOAT_COMP_US_Search, etc. (the existing LD_NAD_COMP_US is the template — it already returns 28× on Triple Whale at tiny spend, proof the model travels).
Inside each, split ad groups by intent so the landing matches: a Category ad group (commercial terms → store PDP) and a Problem ad group (educational terms → advertorial).
Match types: core terms in exact [dopamine patch]; discovery terms in phrase "natural sleep aid" in a small mining ad group that graduates winners to exact (same mining logic as the brand build below).
Bidding: start Target CPA aligned to each product's margin; these lines are cheaper per click than GLP-1, so even a conservative target should clear.

Landing rule (intent → destination)

Commercial / category queries ("nad+ supplement", "dopamine patch", "natural sleep aid") → existing store product page — the visitor already knows the category and wants to buy. Problem-aware / educational queries ("brain fog", "how to debloat", "supplements to reduce cortisol") → advertorial — the visitor needs the problem framed before the product. You tell us which advertorials to build; the store PDPs already exist and can go live immediately.

07Competitor Conquesting · Cross-Checked vs Triple Whale

Conquesting works — better than the platform admits.

Where this data comes from: Ledisa's account has dedicated competitor ad groups (one per competitor brand) plus competitor-brand keywords. The table below is at ad-group level: spend from Google Ads, revenue and orders from Triple Whale (which records the ad group of the last clicked ad on every order — Triple Whale sees ad-group level, not keyword level). Last 14 days.

Competitor ad group	Spend 14d	Triple Whale rev	ROAS	CPA	Field check (see Competitors)
Patched GLP-1 Patches	$10,689	$24,784	2.32	$41.59	Brand is fading (sold out, repositioning) — economics fine today, watch volume decay
Kind GLP-1 Patches	$9,025	$30,347	3.36	$25.35	Category leader — keep, rebuild its POOR ads
Slimming Patches	$6,711	$11,328	1.69	$53.69	Weakest large line — trim or re-angle
Gentle GLP-1 Patches	$3,415	$7,271	2.13	$41.64	Direct playbook peer
Moringa Patches	$2,552	$8,580	3.36	$34.49	Healthy
Purisaki	$1,995	$3,323	1.67	$53.93	Clone-funnel operator — capture its doubt searches instead
Lean Patch	$1,267	$2,709	2.14	$43.68	Same operator as Ozempatch
Nano Microneedling Patch	$975	$1,895	1.94	$54.17	Semaglutide-adjacent — policy risk outweighs return
TonePatch GLP-1 Patches	$804	$1,894	2.36	$38.29	Fine at this size
Ozempatch	$652	$3,217	4.94	$14.81	Best conquest ROAS — but the keyword set carries drug-term policy risk; harvest carefully
Lipovia	$452	$1,352	2.99	$32.26	Unstable operator — doubt-moment capture opportunity

Earlier platform-only analysis suggested Patched was wasteful; the Triple Whale cross-check shows it converting at 2.32 — the field risk is future volume, not current efficiency. This is exactly why every performance read in this audit uses Triple Whale.

08Proposal · Brand Search Expansion

Rebuild brand Search to defend ≥90% impression share.

Brand currently returns $21 per dollar and loses a quarter of its impressions. The proposal: split one catch-all campaign into five intent-matched campaigns, each with its own job, and let an automated rule maintain bids. Reminder on syntax used below: exact match is written [keyword], phrase match is written "keyword".

Campaign	Match type	What goes in it	Bidding
1 · Brand Core	`[exact]`	`[ledisa]`, `[ledisa patches]`, `[ledisa glp-1 patches]` — the pure brand terms	Manual CPC + the IS rule below
2 · Brand Products	`[exact]`	Brand + product line: `[ledisa nad patch]`, `[ledisa sleep patch]`, `[ledisa berberine]`, `[ledisa dopamine patch]`, `[ledisa energy patch]` — protects every SKU's branded demand as the catalog expands	Manual CPC + the IS rule below
3 · Brand Modifiers	`[exact]`	Misspellings (`[leidsa]`, `[ladisa]`, `[ledissa]`, `[ledisa patch]`) and domain / .com variants (`[ledisa.com]`, `[ledisa com]`, `[www ledisa]`, `[tryledisa]`)	Manual CPC + the IS rule below
4 · Brand Reviews	`[exact]` + `"phrase"`	`[ledisa reviews]`, `[is ledisa legit]`, `"does ledisa work"`, `"ledisa side effects"` → lands on a dedicated Reviews page (below)	Bidding test: Max Conversions vs Manual CPC
5 · Brand Mining	`"phrase"` + broad	Broad/phrase brand terms whose only job is discovering new brand query variants. Weekly: converting search terms graduate to `[exact]` in campaigns 1–3; everything mined is negated here to prevent overlap	Max Conversions, low budget

★ The engine: an automated bid rule that finds the cheapest CPC for ≥90% impression share

The exact-match brand campaigns (1, 2, 3) run a daily automated rule keyed to yesterday's impression share:

IF impression share < 90% → raise bids +$0.05 IF impression share ≥ 90% → lower bids −$0.07

This is not a one-time bid set — it's a self-correcting control loop. Because the decrease (−$0.07) is larger than the increase (+$0.05), the rule is permanently biased toward probing downward: every day it's holding ≥90% share, it shaves the bid to test whether it can hold that share for less. The moment share slips below 90%, it climbs back just enough to recover it. Over time the bid converges to the lowest CPC that still wins ~90% of brand impressions — and it keeps re-converging on its own as competitors enter or leave the brand auction. The result is the ideal brand-defense state: maximum impression share at minimum cost-per-click, with zero manual maintenance. On a campaign already returning $21 per dollar, every cent shaved off CPC is pure margin.

Reviews landing page · Preview the page →

A dedicated reviews destination with real aggregated ratings, verified-buyer testimonials, third-party review links, transparent guarantee terms and an FAQ answering "is it legit / does it work / side effects" head-on. Message-matched to the doubt moment — and the trust asset the whole category lacks (see Competitors: every rival fakes scarcity; nobody owns credible proof). Built on Ledisa's visual system; replaces the current mismatched advertorial-homepage destination for the REVIEW campaign (which runs at a $103.91 CPA today).

09Search · Action Plan

This page's actions.

1Policy remediation: rewrite 21 limited ads, remove 2 disapproved, unify the live offerProtects $8.8K/day0–30d

MeasureZero flagged ads in the policy report; rebuilt-ad CTR ≥ baseline.

2Tracking repair: carry click IDs through the myhealthyshape → tryledisa → checkout hop + Enhanced ConversionsLargest growth lever0–30d

MeasureConversion capture from 42% → ≥75% (re-run the reconciliation monthly).

3Brand restructure: Core / Products / Modifiers / Reviews / Mining + daily impression-share bid ruleIS 74% → ≥90% at $21+ ROAS0–30d

MeasureBrand impression share ≥90%; Triple Whale brand CPA stays ≤$10; CPC trending down via the bid rule.

4Reviews: bidding test (Max Conversions vs Manual CPC) + dedicated Reviews landing page$104 → ≤$40 CPA30–60d

MeasureTriple Whale CPA per arm; landing CVR vs current homepage destination.

5Build 3 new GLP-1 advertorials (berberine / over-40 hormonal / appetite), each its own campaignCheaper clicks at scale30–60d

MeasureNew-advertorial CVR ≥ 85% of current page at lower CPC.

6Launch the catalog beyond GLP-1: NAD+, Dopamine/Focus, Unpuff first (intent-matched store vs advertorial landings)New revenue lines30–90d

MeasureEach line clears its margin-based Target CPA on Triple Whale; store PDP lines can launch immediately.

7Conquest tuning: trim Slimming/Purisaki/Nano, keep Kind & Patched, add "is [brand] legit" doubt-captureRe-aims ~$10K/mo30–60d

MeasureConquest segment Triple Whale CPA ≤ $40 at equal volume.

8Hygiene: negatives for informational/marketplace/typo bleed; promotion extensions with the live offer; remove dormant duplicate brand campaign~$5K/mo0–30d

MeasureBleeding list down 80%; promotion assets live on all campaigns.

Search: disciplined build,
throttled performance.

How to tell them apart — and how each performs.

The headline of this page

Everything lost on rank, nothing on budget.

Impression share vs rank-lost — core US non-brand campaign, weekly

The ads are the weak link — and the legal one.

23 of 98 active ads carry policy flags

30 active ads rated POOR strength — $92.4K/90d

Conflicting offers running simultaneously

$8.8K/30d of measurable bleed

Where every active ad actually sends people.

One advertorial carries the whole non-brand program. Build three more.

Advertorial #2 — "Top 5 Berberine Patches" (full build-out) · Preview the page →

Keyword opportunity (US monthly searches · top-of-page bid range)

Angle

Advertorial #3 — "Weight gain after 40" hormonal/editorial angle · Preview the page →

Keyword opportunity

Advertorial #4 — "Feel full sooner" appetite-science explainer · Preview the page →

Keyword opportunity

Nine other products with real search demand — and zero Search presence.

Proposed campaign structure — by product line, tiered by opportunity

How to build it — one campaign per product line, ad groups by intent

Naming & structure (mirrors the GLP-1 model)

Landing rule (intent → destination)

Conquesting works — better than the platform admits.

Rebuild brand Search to defend ≥90% impression share.

★ The engine: an automated bid rule that finds the cheapest CPC for ≥90% impression share

Reviews landing page · Preview the page →

This page's actions.