Microsoft Shopping build for beauty catalogues

Microsoft Shopping earns its place when the catalogue economics survive a smaller sample, not when the clicks look cheap. Our threshold is 10,000 EUR a month in Google Shopping spend. Below that, the Microsoft slice moves too little revenue to manage honestly, and the correct advice is to keep the money in search. We say no to this roughly as often as we say yes. The feed decides everything: Microsoft can pull your feed automatically from Google Merchant Center, and that convenience is why most Microsoft Shopping accounts underperform. What arrives is a feed shaped for Google's demands, carrying every compromise made for Google's title algorithm and none of the work Microsoft's matching needs. We take the source feed instead and apply Microsoft-side rules to it. For cosmetics that means titles ordered brand, product type, then shade or size, because that is the order a Bing shopper types. It means item_group_id populated so eighteen shades of one lipstick stop bidding against each other. It means brand and MPN filled where no GTIN exists, which is the normal condition for an indie beauty line and not the obstacle people assume. And it means testers, samples and gift-with-purchase SKUs pulled out entirely, since they take clicks at full price and carry no basket. Stores, markets and encoding: A Swedish store in SEK and a Danish store in DKK are separate Merchant Center objects with separate approval states, and a feed language that disagrees with the store market fails in ways the interface describes badly. Nordic characters survive the round trip only when the file is UTF-8 without a byte order mark, and a feed that renders angstrom and o-umlaut as replacement characters will still get approved. It just will not match anything. Structure: Campaign priority still exists in Microsoft and it is still the most useful control available. We run a high-priority catch-all at a low bid to harvest queries, negate the converting terms down into a medium-priority campaign holding the SKUs that carry margin, and keep bids where the contribution is, not where the revenue is. We stay on standard Shopping while the account is small enough to read, and move to Microsoft's automated formats only when the conversion count justifies handing over the levers. Cosmetics claims: EU claims for cosmetic products are governed by the common criteria in Regulation (EC) No 655/2013, and product titles and descriptions are claims. Feed copy carrying anti-ageing or treatment-adjacent language either gets disapproved or, worse, gets approved and triggers a sweep across the catalogue weeks later. We rewrite the claim in the feed rather than asking you to change the product page, which keeps the site copy your marketing team approved intact. What we do not do: Product photography, product page copy, Shopify or platform theme work, and Google Shopping. We will name the images that are hurting you and we will not produce replacements. Google Merchant Center work is a separate engagement and we will not pretend the two are one job because the feed file is shared. Not for: Catalogues under a few hundred SKUs, where a well-built search account does the same work for less. Brands whose feed is generated by a platform app they cannot modify and who will not add a supplemental feed, because then the only lever left is bids and you do not need us for bids. And not for anyone who wants a ROAS number committed to in advance, on a channel whose volume in Swedish is decided by Microsoft's distribution rather than by our work.