Supplement brand case study

The problem

Meta and Google both took credit for the same orders, and the budget was being set on numbers nobody trusted.

Added together, the platforms reported more conversions than the store actually processed. Inconsistent campaign tags split the same channels across several labels in GA4, so there was no single view of return by channel.

The team needed to know where to put the next month’s budget, and which spend to cut.

What I found

Audited existing UTMs to find the naming inconsistencies fragmenting channel reporting.
Compared platform-reported conversions against real orders to size the over-counting.
Mapped where attribution overlapped and double-counted across Meta and Google.
Reviewed the funnel from landing page to checkout to see where paid traffic dropped out.
Grouped historic campaigns so past performance could be compared like for like.

The problem wasn’t that one platform was wrong. Each was reporting its own view, and nothing in the setup reconciled them against the orders the store actually took.

What I did

Built one reconciled view of return by channel.

Wrote a UTM naming convention and a simple generator so new campaigns are tagged consistently.
Cleaned up historic tags so past data reads consistently.
De-duplicated conversions against real order data.
Built a single report showing spend, orders and return by channel.
Flagged the campaigns spending without a clear return.
Walked the team through the report so decisions are made from the same numbers.

The result

The brand could see which channels were earning their budget, and which weren’t.

With conversions de-duplicated and campaigns tagged consistently, spend decisions were based on orders the store actually processed.

31%

of ad spend going to channels that were not returning

campaigns retagged and reconciled

days from first call to delivered report

The bigger win

The team didn’t just get a one-off audit. They got a tagging system and a report that keep channel data consistent as new campaigns launch.

Before vs. after

BEFORE

Meta + Google conversions > orders

Each platform claimed credit for the same sales, so total reported conversions ran ahead of real orders and no channel could be judged fairly.

AFTER

Channel conversions ↔ real orders

Conversions were de-duplicated against order data, giving one view of return by channel the whole team agrees on.

Why it mattered

Ad reporting only helps if it answers the questions the budget depends on.

Which channel should get more spend?
Which campaigns should be paused?
What does an order actually cost us by channel?
Are both platforms counting the same sale?

Once the data was reconciled, those questions could be answered from one report.

What I delivered

Tagging auditReviewed existing campaign tags and identified where channel data was being split.

UTM conventionA naming standard and generator so future campaigns are tagged the same way.

Attribution checkMapped overlap between platforms and de-duplicated conversions against orders.

Channel reportOne reconciled report of spend, orders and return by channel.

WalkthroughA call to walk the team through the findings and the report.

The takeaway

You can’t cut the right spend until the numbers agree.

The brand didn’t need another platform dashboard. It needed one view that matched the orders it actually took.

That’s what the audit was designed to provide.

Not sure which ads are actually working?

I’ll check your tagging and attribution, and show you where spend and reported results don’t line up.

Get a free tracking health check →