Marketing Consulting

Partly, and the more valuable half of the work is establishing which differences are defects and which are expected. Platforms genuinely measure different things: attribution windows differ, one counts sessions where another counts users, ad platforms self-attribute conversions they influenced, and browser privacy controls remove signal unevenly. Some gap is normal and permanent. We identify the discrepancies that indicate a real tracking fault, fix those, and document the rest so the business stops relitigating them every month.

Starting from the workflows you actually run and the data you actually hold, rather than a feature comparison. Feature matrices are close to useless at this stage because every serious platform ticks every box, and the differences that matter in practice — integration depth, data export, how the pricing model behaves as you grow, and how much internal effort operating it requires — do not appear on them. We also insist on the exit question: how hard is it to leave, and what would you lose.

Yes, and it is one of our most requested engagements. We review the event taxonomy and whether it is applied consistently, check what is actually firing in production against what is documented, assess the attribution model against your sales cycle, and evaluate how much signal loss you are experiencing from privacy controls. The output ranks what is genuinely misleading your decisions above what is merely imperfect, because everything in attribution is imperfect.

On the technical and analytical side: whether your testing tool is implemented correctly, whether your sample sizes support the conclusions being drawn, whether page performance is suppressing conversion before design is even a factor, and where the funnel data indicates the real drop-off. We are engineers rather than a creative agency, so we do not write the variant copy. In our experience a meaningful share of "conversion problems" turn out to be load-time or form-validation problems, which is squarely engineering work.

The middle path is right for most organisations: a warehouse you already have as the source of truth, with focused tooling for activation, rather than either a full CDP licence or building the whole thing. CDPs are expensive and frequently duplicate a warehouse investment already made. Building from scratch underestimates identity resolution, which is genuinely hard. We would assess what your warehouse already gives you before recommending either.

We hold no vendor partnerships and take no commissions, so there is no financial reason to prefer one product over another. Where we have implemented something before, we say so, since that experience is relevant context rather than a conflict to hide. If you would prefer the assessment be entirely separate from any implementation conversation, that is easily arranged and is a reasonable thing to want.

Most run two to four weeks depending on stack size and how many stakeholders need interviewing. Cost depends on scope and duration and is agreed in writing before work starts — we scope against a specific question rather than selling a fixed package. If a short conversation would answer it, we will say so instead of proposing an engagement.

No, and the deliverables assume otherwise. A roadmap only its author can execute is a sales document rather than advice. Clients regularly take our findings to internal teams or other partners, which is a legitimate and expected outcome. Implementation, if you want it, is a separate conversation held after the assessment.