Case 03 / Strategic outcome
The New Zealand team had spent about $100,000 across multiple channels but lacked a common measure for future allocation.
Product names and logos are trademarks of their respective owners. They are shown only to identify tools used in the work; no endorsement or partnership is implied.
Evidence note: Results retain the supplied evidence label and reporting context. Attributed or estimated results describe the available record, not an unsupported claim of causation.
The New Zealand team had spent about $100,000 in six months against an annual budget of about $200,000. Investment covered paid search, social content, video, rewards, print, promotional items and website work. The team needed a common method for deciding which spend deserved more investment and which needed a different job.
The channel review mapped each channel to cost-per-lead and sales-progression evidence. Display activity also had to prove its contribution through dedicated landing pages over consistent reporting periods.
The review created a practical accountability model for the next budget cycle. Defined agency questions and corrected reporting requirements supported a customer-journey workstream showing where prospects stalled and which spend influenced a commercial outcome. This gave the team a better basis for future allocation before new campaigns were launched.
The review tied each channel invoice to an agreed demand or conversion measure.
Read the Google reviews ↗“attentive to our needs as we grow”
David Patrick O’Riordan, RSGx Google review
Next step
A budget audit can show where the next marketing dollar should go, then turn the evidence into a testable reporting plan.
Request a Growth Review
