€423K found sitting dormant in a list they already ownedA premium automotive e-commerce
€423Kin an audience they had already paid to acquire, and stopped speaking to.
- 2×How far the agency reporting overstated itself. Exposed
- 4Data sources deconstructed, then cross checked against each other
- 9,000Orders and 6,000 real subscribers, examined from raw data
- 38 of 38Findings that held when an independent pass re checked them
The challenge.
They were told they had a demand problem.
A premium business about ten years old, with about 9,000 orders and about 6,000 real subscribers behind it. Sales had gone quiet, and the reporting they were being given agreed that the market had gone quiet with them.
So every number was re derived from the raw data instead of read off the dashboard that drew it. What came back was not a demand problem. It was a reporting problem.
Their ad reporting was claiming roughly twice the contribution it had actually made. Their best converting acquisition channel had been switched off. Their email automations were running dark, so the audience they had already paid to acquire was hearing nothing from them. And the funnel leaked on mobile, where about half as many people converted as on desktop, in a business whose customers arrive on a phone.
None of that is visible from a dashboard, because every one of those numbers was reported by the tool it was judging.
If that shape looks familiar, the consultation is where we go and find yours.
Start with the free consultationWhat we built.
Four sources, taken apart separately, then made to answer to each other.
The commerce platform, the ad platform, web analytics and the email platform were each investigated on their own, and each one's numbers were re derived from raw data rather than read off the dashboard it draws for itself. That is what surfaced the two times overstatement. The platform's account of its own contribution did not survive contact with the orders.
Then the four investigations were cross checked against each other instead of accepted individually. A finding only stood if it stood in more than one place.
The email account was taken apart end to end. Every flow, every trigger, every audience, mapped against what was actually sending. That is where the dormant money was: an audience the business already owned and had stopped speaking to.
Then a prioritised fix plan, ordered by what recovers value soonest rather than by what is quickest to say.
And before any of it reached the owners, the whole study went through an independent verification pass. That pass is not a formality. It is where a study catches its own overreach, and this one did.
The results.
€423K of dormant value, found and priced, in a list the business already owned.
The ad reporting overstatement exposed and quantified at about two times. The strongest converting channel identified as having been shut off, with the cost of that named. The mobile leak found and measured at roughly half the desktop conversion rate.
The email teardown came back from the independent re check at 38 pass and zero fail.
And the question changed. They came in asking where to find more demand. They left asking why the demand they already had was not converting, and was not being counted properly.
Tell us what yours looks like.
Bring us the part of your business that runs on someone remembering. We will tell you what it would take to build it out.