Hanhoo has Page 1 organic visibility on only 5 out of 198 relevant keywords, representing less than 1% of the category's total search volume. Top competitors have 97–100% of keywords on Page 1. This is the single biggest driver of the revenue decline—shoppers simply cannot find Hanhoo organically.
| Period | Revenue | Units | Orders | Avg Units/Order | ASP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May–Dec 2024 | $340,030 | 31,678 | 27,361 | 1.16 | $10.73 |
| Jan–Dec 2025 | $413,261 | 27,169 | 24,357 | 1.12 | $15.21 |
| Q1 2026 | $64,340 | 3,642 | 3,281 | 1.11 | $17.66 |
| Month | 2024 Revenue | 2025/26 Revenue | YoY % |
|---|---|---|---|
| May | $47,215 | $34,638 | −26.6% |
| Jun | $41,063 | $32,671 | −20.4% |
| Jul | $44,391 | $38,000 | −14.4% |
| Aug | $43,874 | $35,821 | −18.4% |
| Sep | $40,392 | $36,346 | −10.0% |
| Oct | $37,901 | $26,107 | −31.1% |
| Nov | $39,727 | $29,662 | −25.3% |
| Dec | $45,468 | $32,753 | −28.0% |
| Jan | $37,790 | $21,317 | −43.6% |
| Feb | $34,574 | $18,613 | −46.2% |
| Mar | $40,208 | $24,409 | −39.3% |
Every single month shows a YoY decline, with the sharpest drops in Q4 2025 and Q1 2026. The pattern suggests compounding loss of organic visibility, competitive pressure, and ad inefficiency working together.
| Month | Total Rev | Ad Spend | Ad Sales | TACOS | ACOS | Ad % | Organic % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 25 | $26,107 | $7,765 | $10,570 | 29.7% | 73.5% | 40.5% | 59.5% |
| Nov 25 | $29,662 | $9,290 | $11,463 | 31.3% | 81.0% | 38.6% | 61.4% |
| Dec 25 | $32,753 | $6,401 | $13,147 | 19.5% | 48.7% | 40.1% | 59.9% |
| Jan 26 | $21,317 | $5,222 | $8,309 | 24.5% | 62.8% | 39.0% | 61.0% |
| Feb 26 | $18,613 | $3,416 | $5,812 | 18.4% | 58.8% | 31.2% | 68.8% |
| Mar 26 | $24,409 | $3,836 | $6,814 | 15.7% | 56.3% | 27.9% | 72.1% |
Organic share of revenue has increased in Q1 2026, but this is misleading: it reflects ad spend cuts, not organic strength. Organic revenue itself is declining. ACOS consistently above the 50% target indicates ads are actively burning margin without generating sustainable volume.
For a replenishable skincare product like pimple patches, SnS should be the core retention engine. A 41% decline in subscribers over 19 months means the repeat-purchase base is systematically eroding, putting enormous pressure on paid acquisition.
| Parent | Product | Revenue | Rev % | Sessions | Units | CVR | Segment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B0DDZ4D2PG | Blemish Patches 288ct | $10,200 | 24.5% | 2,105 | 280 | 13.3% | Top Performer |
| B098ZYVPSY | On the Go Blemish Patch 108ct | $5,542 | 13.3% | 1,101 | 451 | 41.0% | Top Performer |
| B0F6VMTWVX | Blemish Patch 432ct (12 Pack) | $2,948 | 7.1% | 487 | 95 | 19.5% | Needs Optimization |
| B0F2JHGSCK | Blemish & Custom Patch Duo | $1,906 | 4.6% | 759 | 106 | 14.0% | Needs Optimization |
| B0CRSNJF4K | Pore Cleanser | $1,939 | 4.7% | 1,269 | 154 | 12.1% | Needs Optimization |
| B0FBS2VKF9 | Extra Strength Bundle 108ct | $1,818 | 4.4% | 361 | 132 | 36.6% | High Potential |
| B0CVCXG849 | T-Zone & Body Bundle | $1,146 | 2.8% | 992 | 33 | 3.3% | Needs Optimization |
| B0CVCMWKVP | Variety Pack Bundle | $1,189 | 2.9% | 747 | 43 | 5.8% | Needs Optimization |
| Keyword | Search Vol | Relevancy | Hanhoo Rank | Best Comp. | Page 1? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pimple patches | 1,245,945 | 90% | 62 | 2 | Not P1 |
| pimple patches for face | 241,198 | 90% | 82 | 1 | Not P1 |
| acne patches | 138,080 | 90% | NR | 2 | Not P1 |
| pimple patch | 91,771 | 90% | 109 | 2 | Not P1 |
| zit patches | 38,501 | 90% | NR | 1 | Not P1 |
| blemish patches | 15,313 | 100% | 20 | 2 | Page 1 |
| acne patch | 13,810 | 90% | 114 | 1 | Not P1 |
| pimple | 11,864 | 90% | NR | 1 | Not P1 |
| acne patches for face | 6,983 | 90% | NR | 1 | Not P1 |
| zit stickers | 6,213 | 90% | NR | 1 | Not P1 |
| blemish patch | 1,253 | 100% | 15 | 1 | Page 1 |
| pimple pacthes (misspell) | 579 | 100% | 45 | 2 | Page 1 |
The top 5 keywords by volume (1.76M combined monthly searches) all show Hanhoo ranked outside Page 1. Competitors like Mighty Patch rank #1–#2 on every single term. This organic visibility gap is the primary driver of the revenue decline.
| Search Term | SQV | Clicks | Orders | ASIN CTR | Mkt CTR | CTR Δ | ASIN CVR | Mkt CVR | CVR Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pimple patches | 2,322,798 | 272 | 25 | 0.41% | 2.68% | −2.27% | 9.19% | 29.79% | −20.60% |
| pimple patches for face | 538,331 | 30 | 4 | 0.58% | 2.59% | −2.01% | 13.33% | 28.50% | −15.16% |
| blemish patches | 32,042 | 94 | 6 | 1.29% | 2.26% | −0.97% | 6.38% | 23.84% | −17.46% |
“pimple patches” is the category’s #1 head term (2.3M SQV). Hanhoo gets roughly 1/6th the clicks of the average competitor and converts at 9% vs market 30%. Aggressive ad spending here is burning budget. Reduce bids and keep only tightly controlled coverage until listing improvements are in place.
| Search Term | SQV | Clicks | Orders | ASIN CTR | Mkt CTR | CTR Δ | ASIN CVR | Mkt CVR | CVR Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hanhoo blemish patch | 7,439 | 692 | 49 | 5.85% | 1.82% | +4.03% | 7.08% | 8.16% | −1.08% |
| hanhoo pimple patches | 2,682 | 202 | 15 | 4.85% | 1.64% | +3.21% | 7.43% | 10.09% | −2.67% |
| hanhoo | 2,401 | 148 | 9 | 4.40% | 2.06% | +2.34% | 6.08% | 7.31% | −1.23% |
| hanhoo extra strength blemish patch | 1,883 | 91 | 2 | 3.58% | 2.34% | +1.24% | 2.20% | 7.11% | −4.91% |
| pimple patches hanhoo | 1,076 | 89 | 3 | 5.41% | 1.95% | +3.47% | 3.37% | 11.31% | −7.94% |
| han hoo pimple patches | 872 | 79 | 3 | 6.34% | 2.28% | +4.06% | 3.80% | 10.51% | −6.72% |
| hanhoo blemish patches | 358 | 30 | 4 | 5.48% | 1.71% | +3.77% | 13.33% | 14.19% | −0.86% |
The core issue is not awareness—it is post-click persuasion. The PDP needs to justify the $31.99 price point, prove product efficacy, and build buyer confidence. Key levers: strengthen image stack with before/after proof, add per-patch cost callout ($0.11/patch), improve hydrocolloid storytelling, and leverage the 4.7 rating more prominently.
“hanhoo blemish patches” is the closest to flipping into Bucket D—only 0.86pp CVR gap. Modest PDP improvements could move this term into a winning position.
| Search Term | Spend | Sales | ACOS | Orders | Clicks | Impr. | CVR | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hanhoo blemish patch | $911 | $2,960 | 30.8% | 119 | 724 | 22,658 | 16.4% | $1.26 |
| hanhoo pimple patches | $278 | $726 | 38.3% | 28 | 190 | 3,176 | 14.7% | $1.46 |
| pimple patches hanhoo | $187 | $520 | 35.9% | 25 | 131 | 4,450 | 19.1% | $1.43 |
| hanhoo | $168 | $828 | 20.3% | 49 | 203 | 5,180 | 24.1% | $0.83 |
| hanhoo extra strength | $159 | $445 | 35.8% | 20 | 120 | 2,114 | 16.7% | $1.33 |
| han hoo pimple patches | $68 | $166 | 41.0% | 8 | 52 | 285 | 15.4% | $1.31 |
| hanhoo blemish patches | $44 | $44 | 100.2% | 2 | 33 | 429 | 6.1% | $1.35 |
Branded terms are performing well—most below the 50% ACOS target. “hanhoo blemish patch” alone drives $2,960 in ad sales at 30.8% ACOS, making it the single most valuable search term. “hanhoo” converts at 24.1% at just 20.3% ACOS. Priority: defend these terms aggressively against competitor conquesting.
| Search Term | Spend | Sales | ACOS | Orders | Clicks | Impr. | CVR | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pimple patches | $169 | $379 | 44.6% | 13 | 139 | 10,081 | 9.4% | $1.21 |
| blemish patches | $116 | $309 | 37.5% | 10 | 66 | 2,582 | 15.2% | $1.75 |
| pimple patches for face | $28 | $32 | 88.9% | 1 | 20 | 791 | 5.0% | $1.42 |
| acne patches | $18 | $40 | 45.7% | 1 | 13 | 177 | 7.7% | $1.41 |
| pimple patch | $10 | $0 | N/A | 0 | 6 | 89 | 0.0% | $1.71 |
| blemish patch | $30 | $0 | N/A | 0 | 20 | 383 | 0.0% | $1.52 |
| zit patches | $1 | $8 | 15.4% | 1 | 1 | 1 | 100% | $1.29 |
| acne patches for face (SV 6,983) | No ad coverage | |||||||
| zit stickers (SV 6,213) | No ad coverage | |||||||
| best pimple patches (SV 2,867) | No ad coverage | |||||||
| hydrocolloid pimple patches (SV 3,522) | No ad coverage | |||||||
“blemish patches” performs well at 37.5% ACOS with 15.2% CVR—this term is worth scaling. Meanwhile, 4 high-value category keywords have no ad coverage at all: acne patches for face, zit stickers, best pimple patches, hydrocolloid pimple patches. These represent missed demand capture opportunities worth testing with controlled Exact match campaigns.
No SB campaigns means missing brand defense visibility, SBV (Sponsored Brands Video) opportunities, and top-of-search brand presence. SBV in particular tends to deliver strong CTR and CVR in skincare/beauty categories and should be tested immediately.
| Match Type | Spend | Spend % | Sales | ACOS | CVR | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auto | $6,093 | 77.0% | $9,551 | 63.8% | 9.3% | $1.21 |
| Broad | $1,050 | 13.3% | $1,534 | 68.4% | 9.2% | $1.29 |
| Exact | $660 | 8.3% | $1,891 | 34.9% | 14.6% | $1.41 |
| Phrase | $110 | 1.4% | $299 | 36.8% | 15.4% | $1.41 |
77% of all ad spend goes to Auto campaigns at 63.8% ACOS—well above the 50% target. Meanwhile, Exact and Phrase (the most efficient at 34.9% and 36.8% ACOS) receive only 9.7% of total spend combined. This is a major misallocation that should be corrected immediately.
Target ACOS: 50% | High Spend Threshold: $9.62 (AOV $19.24 × 50%)
| Tier | # Targets | Spend | Spend % | Sales | Orders | ACOS | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACOS < 40% | 47 | $1,391 | 17.6% | $5,091 | 211 | 27.3% | $1.25 |
| ACOS 40–60% | 16 | $2,437 | 30.8% | $4,815 | 232 | 50.6% | $1.42 |
| ACOS > 60% | 47 | $3,250 | 41.1% | $3,369 | 181 | 96.5% | $1.13 |
| High Spend No Orders | 26 | $518 | 6.5% | $0 | 0 | N/A | $1.27 |
| Low Spend No Orders | 112 | $317 | 4.0% | $0 | 0 | N/A | $1.15 |
Almost half of all ad spend (47.6%) sits in the “ACOS > 60%” and “High Spend No Orders” tiers across 73 targets. That’s $3,768 per 60 days on targets that are deeply unprofitable or generating zero returns. Cutting these and reallocating toward the 47 targets delivering ACOS < 40% would meaningfully improve overall efficiency.
| Placement | Spend | Spend % | Sales | ACOS | CVR | RPC | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top of Search | $2,242 | 28% | $5,213 | 43.0% | 13.2% | $3.15 | $1.35 |
| Rest of Search | $3,255 | 41% | $4,524 | 72.0% | 8.3% | $1.77 | $1.28 |
| Product Pages | $2,406 | 30% | $3,538 | 68.0% | 9.1% | $1.65 | $1.12 |
71 campaigns are active, many with small budgets. This leads to fragmented spend, limited data collection per campaign, and difficulty in optimization. Combined with 77% Auto spend and zero SB/SD presence, the campaign architecture needs a complete restructure.
Key fixes: Shift Auto → Exact/Phrase on proven winners. Launch SB headline campaigns for brand defense. Launch SBV on top converting keywords. Cap Rest of Search and Product Pages placements until CVR improves.
| Metric | Hanhoo | Top Competitor |
|---|---|---|
| Overall Ranking Juice | 3,166,586 | 5,496,601 (PatchRx) |
| Title Ranking Juice | 139,458 | 5,487,381 (PatchRx) |
| KWs on Page 1 | 5 / 198 | 198 / 198 (Mighty Patch) |
| SV on Page 1 | 0.9% | 100% (Mighty Patch) |
Hanhoo’s Title Ranking Juice of 139,458 is roughly 40× lower than the category leader. The title is missing critical high-search-volume keyword variants or is using phrasing that doesn’t match primary shopper search language. The title needs to be rebuilt around core intent keywords.
Hanhoo’s biggest asset — 288 patches for $31.99 — should be positioned as “smart value for daily acne care,” not just a bulk count. The current messaging treats it as a quantity play; it needs to be reframed as a routine/convenience story that justifies the premium sticker price.
| Brand | ASIN | Price | Rating | Reviews | P1 KWs | Sales |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mighty Patch (Hero) | B074PVTPBW | $12.99 | 4.6 | 182,812 | 198/198 | 280,255 |
| Rael | B07G1VKCND | $13.59 | 4.5 | 73,760 | 197/198 | 80,553 |
| Peach Slices | B09RF1QBHR | $8.99 | 4.4 | 17,592 | 193/198 | 64,611 |
| PanOxyl | B0896MFFJW | $6.71 | 4.6 | 12,901 | 193/198 | 46,476 |
| Good Molecules | B0CTJMB37K | $7.97 | 4.7 | 2,417 | 191/198 | 38,662 |
| HANHOO (Us) | B08XDJPYH1 | $31.99 | 4.7 | 367 | 5/198 | 230 |
| Area | Position | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Page 1 Keyword Coverage | Very Weak | 5/198 keywords on P1; <1% of SV vs 97–100% for competitors |
| Price | Premium | $31.99 vs $7–$14 market, but ~$0.11/patch vs ~$0.36/patch (Mighty Patch) |
| Review Count | Weak | 367 vs 13,169 median; far behind category leaders |
| Rating | Strong | 4.7 — matches or exceeds most competitors |
| CTR Competitiveness | Weak on generic | 0.4% CTR vs 2.7% market on head terms |
| CVR Competitiveness | Below market | Even branded terms show CVR trailing market |
| Creative Strength | Below leaders | Dated design, weak proof structure, underexploited value prop |
| SEO / Ranking Juice | Very Weak | Title Ranking Juice 40× below leader |
While Hanhoo’s sticker price of $31.99 creates an immediate perception barrier on generic searches, the per-patch cost is actually competitive: $0.11/patch (288 patches) vs $0.36/patch for Mighty Patch (36 patches at $12.99). This value story is not being communicated effectively and needs to be a front-and-center message in the image stack and title.
Only 5/198 keywords on Page 1. <1% of category search volume.
77% Auto spend at 63.8% ACOS. Unbranded terms at 87.3% ACOS.
Image stack below category leaders. Weak proof, trust, and premium perception.
367 vs 13K+ median. Missing critical social proof signals.
−584 subscribers from peak (−40.8%). Repeat-purchase safety net is gone.
Reallocating $3,768 from wasteful tiers + SEO title fix could deliver 15–20pp ACOS improvement and begin rebuilding organic visibility on high-SV keywords within weeks.