Consolidated date for placements across eBay

[lupo-store]

Please find below a concise evidence summary from our Promoted Listings Priority placement reports showing a clear deterioration in performance from “Consolidated data from placements across eBay.”
Summary (3-period trend)
We reviewed three periods:
Period 1 = Feb 2025
Period 2 = Jan 2026
Period 3 = Feb 2026
Key finding
Consolidated placements are taking an increasingly large share of impressions and ad spend, while returning materially lower efficiency than other eBay placements.
Commercial impact at a glance (Period 3 = Feb 2026)
In the most recent period:
Consolidated share of ad spend: 29.88%
Consolidated share of sales: 10.25%
Consolidated ROAS: 1.25x
Rest of eBay placements ROAS: 4.66x
Consolidated ACOS: 80.07%
Rest of eBay placements ACOS: 21.46%
This means consolidated placements are consuming nearly 30% of spend while generating only ~10% of sales in that period.
Trend evidence (Consolidated placements only)
Metric
Period 1 (Feb 25)
Period 2 (Jan 26)
Period 3 (Feb 26)
Share of Ad Spend
8.03%
20.85%
29.88%
Share of Sales
5.32%
12.18%
10.25%
Share of Clicks
9.67%
20.79%
22.89%
Share of Impressions
68.75%
84.74%
88.08%
CTR
0.36%
0.25%
0.26%
CVR
11.99%
11.05%
8.54%
Avg CPC
£0.28
£0.33
£0.41
ROAS
2.21x
1.97x
1.25x
ACOS
45.24%
50.67%
80.07%
Deterioration across the 3 periods
ROAS fell: 2.21x → 1.25x (down 43.4%)
ACOS increased: 45.24% → 80.07% (up 34.83 percentage points)
CVR fell: 11.99% → 8.54%
Avg CPC increased: £0.28 → £0.41
Spend share increased: 8.03% → 29.88%
Comparison with non-consolidated eBay placements (Period 3)
In Feb 2026, the rest of eBay placements performed substantially better:
ROAS: 4.66x (vs 1.25x consolidated)
ACOS: 21.46% (vs 80.07% consolidated)
CVR: 21.56% (vs 8.54% consolidated)
Avg CPC: £0.29 (vs £0.41 consolidated)
This indicates the issue is not a broad account-wide decline. Other placements improved while consolidated performance worsened.
Request for clarification / support
Please confirm the following in writing:
What placements are included in “Consolidated data from placements across eBay”
Whether sellers can opt out / exclude these placements in Promoted Listings Priority
Whether any placement-level controls or exclusions are available via support/account settings
Whether eBay can recommend a best-practice approach to reduce low-intent consolidated traffic while preserving stronger placement performance
Whether eBay plans to introduce more granular placement controls/reporting for Priority campaigns
We can provide report exports/screenshots if required.

[lupo-store]

@valueaddedresource  please see this.  I have hardly changed anything on my ads.  Its clear that eBay are spending more of my money ........badly.

Like going to the Casino, giving your money to the croupier and asking them to bid on your behalf.      There appears to be NO WAY to stop this.  

[thealuminiumshop]

There isn't a way to stop it and the result is never positive from "Consolidated Placements" 

[lupo-store]

I have located ways to negate it (getting rid of too generic search terms) but nonetheless it appears that eBay are simply spending a greater proportion of my money on these lower intent placements and wasting my money.  My own ROAS is 4.66 and quite healthy.  This consolidated data appears to be similar to a Ponzi scheme

[lupo-store]

This has been sent to eBay:

I have downloaded all data from last year to this and is striking how much more is being spent on this and how poor it is:

Monthly table (key fields)

Month	Consolidated spend (£)	Consolidated % of ad spend	Overall ROAS	Consolidated ROAS	Non-consolidated ROAS	Consolidated vs non ROAS (diff)
2025-02	439.32	8.03%	3.33	2.21	3.43	-1.22
2025-03	511.25	8.27%	3.51	2.66	3.58	-0.92
2025-04	442.89	9.28%	4.00	2.56	4.14	-1.58
2025-05	397.36	8.52%	3.74	3.18	3.79	-0.61
2025-06	343.19	7.03%	4.24	2.83	4.35	-1.52
2025-07	508.75	9.55%	4.47	3.27	4.60	-1.32
2025-08	468.75	8.66%	3.93	3.10	4.00	-0.90
2025-09	634.34	8.42%	3.44	2.65	3.51	-0.85
2025-10	1,019.67	11.13%	3.18	2.16	3.31	-1.15
2025-11	1,411.37	13.77%	3.62	1.95	3.88	-1.93
2025-12	1,843.34	19.33%	3.60	1.80	4.03	-2.23
2026-01	2,091.59	20.85%	3.38	1.97	3.75	-1.77
2026-02*	1,681.17	29.83%	3.66	1.22	4.70	-3.48

As you can see Consolidated spend is drastically up since October.  Consolidated ROAS has worsened whilst my own ROAS has improved. 

Only eBay can be driving this additional spend and waste.

I’m raising a formal complaint regarding Promoted Listings Priority (CPC) performance and reporting — specifically the line item shown in my keyword reporting as “Consolidated data from placements across eBay”.

Over the last year, the proportion of my advertising spend attributed to “Consolidated data from placements across eBay” has materially increased, while returns have deteriorated.

Evidence (from my monthly eBay Priority keyword reports):

• Feb 2025: Consolidated data spend share 8.03%; Consolidated ROAS 2.21; Non-consolidated ROAS 3.43
• Feb 2026 (01–26 Feb): Consolidated data spend share 29.83%; Consolidated ROAS 1.22; Non-consolidated ROAS 4.70
• The consolidated placement ROAS is consistently and significantly worse than non-consolidated ROAS, and the spend share has risen from ~8% to ~30%.

This is a serious concern because this spend is presented as part of keyword reporting, yet I do not have meaningful controls to opt out of, or restrict, these “consolidated” placements. In practice, budget is being allocated into placements that I cannot clearly identify or manage, and the resulting ROAS is materially lower.

What I’m requesting (please address each point in writing):

1. A clear definition of what is included in “Consolidated data from placements across eBay” for Priority campaigns, and which placements it covers.
2. An explanation of what has changed (placements, eligibility, auction mechanics, reporting, or distribution) that would drive the spend share increase from ~8% to ~30% over the year.
3. Confirmation of what controls exist (if any) to reduce or prevent spend being allocated into these consolidated placements — including any account-level settings, campaign configuration, or exclusions.
4. A review by the Advertising team of my account/campaigns and confirmation whether I have been migrated into broader distribution or new placements without clear disclosure.
5. Given the material performance deterioration and lack of placement transparency/control, I am requesting a goodwill credit and/or fee adjustment for the affected period.

[lupo-store]

Today I have sent the ads team this email:

Dear eBay Advertising Team,

I am writing to formally raise a concern regarding the “Consolidated data from placements across eBay” within Promoted Listings (Priority campaigns).

Over recent months, I have observed a significant increase in the proportion of my advertising spend being attributed to this “consolidated” category. In some cases, this now represents a substantial share of total spend, yet there is no visibility into the underlying drivers of this traffic.

Specifically, there is currently:

* No ability to identify which search queries or keywords are generating this spend
* No breakdown of which placements (e.g. homepage, similar items, off-search surfaces) are responsible
* No mechanism to apply negative keywords or exclusions to this traffic
* No controls to optimise or limit exposure to low-performing placements

This creates a fundamental issue for advertisers attempting to manage campaigns based on performance metrics such as ROAS, CPC efficiency, and conversion rate.

As a seller actively managing campaigns with defined ROAS targets, I am able to optimise keyword-level performance within standard reporting. However, the growing share of spend attributed to consolidated placements is effectively non-actionable. This means:

* I cannot identify or exclude low-intent or irrelevant queries
* I cannot refine targeting to improve conversion rate
* I cannot meaningfully control or improve ROAS for a growing portion of my spend

In effect, a significant part of campaign performance is being driven by traffic that cannot be analysed, adjusted, or optimised.

Given the importance of performance-based advertising, I would appreciate clarification on the following:

1. Are there any plans to introduce reporting transparency for consolidated placements, including keyword or query-level attribution?
2. Will sellers be given the ability to apply negative keywords or exclusions to this traffic?
3. Is there any way to control or limit exposure to consolidated placements that is not currently documented?

At present, the lack of transparency and control makes it difficult to justify increasing ad investment, as performance cannot be fully understood or managed.

I would appreciate this being escalated to the relevant product or advertising team, as this appears to be a structural limitation rather than an isolated issue.

I look forward to your response.