Case study · Electronics
Vac & Vacuums: winning back a buy box the brand was losing to itself
An appliance brand competing against its own resellers across European marketplaces, with buy-box share falling and returns climbing on one core model. Both problems traced back to the same catalogue.
INDUSTRY
MARKET
The cordless range at the centre of the problem — strong demand, unclear specifications and an unattended repricer.
Results snapshot
What changed in two quarters
Buy-box share and organic marketplace rank both recovered, and the return rate on the problem model fell.
+44%
Buy-box share
On the core cordless range
-17%
Return rate
On the model driving most returns
+26%
Marketplace revenue
Across Amazon and eBay in Europe
7 wks
To payback
On the engagement fee
Returns here are measured as a share of units shipped, not as a share of revenue, so a price change cannot flatter the number.
About the client
An appliance brand selling through marketplaces
Vac & Vacuums sells cordless and cylinder vacuum cleaners across several European markets, primarily through Amazon and eBay.
The brand grew through distribution rather than direct sales. Resellers carried the products into several European marketplaces, which built volume quickly and, for a while, worked well for everyone.
As the brand began selling directly on the same marketplaces, that arrangement turned into a problem. Nobody owned the listings, several parties were editing them, and the brand was competing on price against partners it had supplied.
- Amazon and eBay across four European markets
- Cordless, cylinder and accessory ranges
- A reseller network selling the same catalogue
- No single owner for listing content or pricing policy
The challenge
Losing the buy box, and gaining returns
Two symptoms that looked unrelated turned out to share a cause.
Buy-box share was falling because the brand and its resellers were bidding each other down on listings none of them controlled. An unattended repricer made this worse: it responded to every undercut automatically, and margin drained without anyone deciding it should.
The returns problem sat on the same listings. Variations had been merged and split repeatedly over the years, so a customer buying the mid-tier model frequently received something with different runtime or attachments to what they believed they had ordered.
- Brand and resellers undercutting each other on shared listings
- A repricer running unattended with no floor policy
- Variation structure merged and split repeatedly over several years
- Returns concentrated on one model, driven by specification confusion
Our analysis
One catalogue causing both problems
The returns and the buy box turned out to be the same story told twice.
Mapping every listing against the actual product specification showed how far the catalogue had drifted. Three genuinely different models were sharing a parent listing, and the reviews attached to it were a blend of experiences with all three. The mid-tier model inherited complaints about a product nobody buying it had received.
On price, we reconstructed six months of buy-box history. The pattern was mechanical: a reseller undercut, the repricer matched within the hour, and the floor moved down a step. Nobody had set a floor, so the process simply repeated.
- Three distinct models sharing one parent listing and one review pool
- Return reasons clustering on runtime and attachment expectations
- Six months of buy-box history showing a mechanical downward ratchet
- No pricing floor and no policy governing the reseller network
Fixing the price war without fixing the catalogue would have protected margin on listings that were still generating returns.
Strategy
Own the listing, then own the price
Three commitments, in the order they had to happen.
Make the catalogue tell the truth
- One listing per genuinely distinct product
- Specifications written to answer the questions driving returns
- Review pools separated so feedback matches the product
Set a floor and enforce it
- A written pricing policy covering brand and resellers
- Repricer given a floor rather than free rein
- Buy-box share monitored weekly, not quarterly
Earn rank rather than buy it
- Listing content rebuilt around real search behaviour
- Attributes completed so filters actually surface the range
- Retail media pointed at listings that convert
The reseller conversation was the hard part. A written policy made it a commercial discussion rather than a weekly argument.
What we did
The work, service by service
Four service lines, one team, one shared plan.
MARKETPLACE
Variation structure separated by real product difference, a written pricing floor applied across brand and resellers, and buy-box health monitored weekly.
- Parent-child structure rebuilt around genuine variants
- Pricing policy written and applied to the reseller network
- Repricer floors set and monitored
CONTENT
Every return reason was turned into a content requirement: runtime, attachments, weight and floor-type suitability stated plainly in images as well as text.
- Return reasons mapped directly into listing content
- Specification comparison built into the image stack
- A+ content rewritten per model rather than per range
SEARCH
Separating the listings reset their ranking history, so titles, attributes and back-end terms were rebuilt around how shoppers actually search this category.
- Titles and attributes rebuilt per model
- Category filters completed so the range surfaces properly
- Back-end search terms researched rather than inherited
MANAGEMENT
One team responsible for listing content, pricing and reseller relations, with a weekly rhythm replacing the ad-hoc firefighting the account had been running on.
- Single ownership of listings and pricing
- Weekly buy-box and returns review
- Reseller onboarding process with the policy attached
Implementation
How it was sequenced
Twelve weeks, ordered so the catalogue was correct before any attempt was made to rank or defend it.
WEEKS 1-2
Map the damage
Every listing audited against the real specification, and six months of buy-box and returns history reconstructed.
WEEKS 3-6
Separate the catalogue
Variations split by genuine product difference. Ranking history resets when you do this, so it was done first and deliberately.
WEEKS 7-9
Content and search
Listing content, images and attributes rebuilt per model, with return reasons treated as the content brief.
WEEKS 10-12
Price and defend
Pricing policy issued to the reseller network, repricer floors set, and the weekly monitoring rhythm handed over.
Splitting the listings cost rank in the short term. Doing it before the content and pricing work meant the recovery landed on listings that deserved it.
Results
The KPI breakdown
Measured over 90 days, against the same period a year earlier.
Metric
Before
After
Change
Buy-box share (cordless range)
48%
69%
+44%
Return rate (mid-tier model)
12.4%
10.3%
-17%
Marketplace revenue
baseline
+26%
+26%
Average selling price
€189
€214
+13%
Organic marketplace rank (core term)
page 2
top 5
recovered
Listings with complete attributes
34%
96%
+62pt
Retail media share of sales
31%
19%
-12pt
Retail media share falling is the point: more of the revenue is now earned rather than bought.
Supporting evidence
Before and after, side by side
The operating changes behind the numbers above.
BEFORE
• Three distinct models sharing one parent listing and one review pool
• Repricer running unattended with no floor
• No written pricing policy for the reseller network
• Return reasons logged but never fed back into listing content
• Attributes incomplete on two thirds of listings
AFTER
• One listing per genuinely distinct product, with its own reviews
• Repricer operating inside a defined floor
• A written policy issued to every reseller, with onboarding attached
• Every return reason answered in the listing content and images
• Attributes complete on almost the whole catalogue
The return rate fell without a single change to the product. Customers were returning a mismatch between expectation and delivery, not a fault.
We assumed the returns were a quality issue and the price war was a market issue. They were both the same listing problem, and neither of us had spotted it.
Commercial Director
Vac & Vacuums
Services used
The service lines behind this engagement
Four of our nine service lines worked on this account, under a single plan and a single owner.
Catalogue structure, pricing policy and buy-box health — the service that owned the change that mattered most here.
Listing copy, image stacks and A+ content built to answer the questions driving returns.
Marketplace search visibility rebuilt after the catalogue was separated.
Single ownership of the channel, with a weekly rhythm replacing ad-hoc firefighting.
Classification
Platform, industry and market
Every case study on this site is classified on four axes so you can find the one that matches your situation.
This engagement is filed as Marketplace Management + Amazon + Electronics + Europe. It appears on each of those four pages.
Related work
Other case studies worth reading
Matched on shared services, platform or market.
Are you competing against your own resellers?
If your buy-box share is falling and nobody owns the pricing policy, the answer is usually yes. Tell us which marketplaces you sell on and we will show you where the margin is going.