The finding
Meta Ads books the most revenue and the least profit per ad-rupee. Switch from gross revenue to net ROAS and it falls from #1 to last of four.
A spreadsheet that ranks channels by revenue would tell NourishBox to pour more into Meta. By net ROAS — contribution earned per ₹1 of ad spend — it's the worst paid channel, while Email/SMS, on ~3% of the ad budget, returns roughly 15× net. Use the toggle to watch the ranking flip — then model the fix in section 03.
That widening gap is everything the top-line view hides: spend + returns.
Bar = the chosen metric. Net ROAS = net contribution earned per ₹1 of ad spend.
| Channel | Net contrib | Net ROAS | Ranked by gross rev |
|---|
Shifts monthly spend from Meta into Email/SMS + Google and re-models blended net ROAS — with diminishing returns, so it doesn't pretend small channels scale forever.
Move ₹/month from Meta (marginal net ROAS ≈ 1.0×) into Email/SMS (60%) and Google (40%). Each destination earns less per rupee as you push more in.
Projected H1 net contribution vs. monthly reallocation
Illustrative model, not a forecast — destination channels saturate (ROAS decays as spend rises); Meta's freed spend valued at its ~1.0× marginal net ROAS. The point: the lift is real but bounded — past the optimum, Email/SMS can't absorb more.
Re-ranking channels by net ROAS makes the budget call obvious: Meta's net ROAS has slipped to ≈1.2× — it now returns barely a rupee of contribution per rupee spent — while Email/SMS sits near 15× on a tiny budget.
But the simulator shows the catch: the gain flattens past ~₹1L/mo because Email/SMS saturates. And the deeper cause hides in the returns column — 38% of all returns trace to one SKU, the Protein Power Bowl, which skews to Meta's discount-driven traffic. So Meta's poor margin is partly a product-and-expectation problem, not purely a channel one.