Sample Paid Media Verdict
See What a Paid Media Verdict Looks Like
A Paid Media Verdict is a written review of what your ad platforms reported, what your team or agency reported, and what your business records support.
What this page shows
This page shows two things.
The first is one real finding, anonymized, from an account we reviewed. The second is a representative excerpt that shows how a Paid Media Verdict reads on the page.
The excerpt is illustrative. It uses example structure and example language, not another reviewed account's results. A real Verdict is written from your own account data, your tracking setup, and your downstream business records where those records are available and in scope.
Real anonymized finding
One account we reviewed was spending $45,000 per month on ads.
Its conversion tag was firing on page load, not on a booked action. The platform recorded a conversion when the page loaded, not when a customer completed the booked action. Those two events were not measuring the same thing.
The Verdict identified $14,200 per month in potentially recoverable waste tied to that gap.
Results are account-specific. This example is an anonymized finding from one reviewed account. It does not guarantee that the same issue, waste amount, or recovery percentage will appear in another account. Potentially recoverable waste means documented inefficiency in tracking, campaign structure, bidding, targeting, or spend. Actual recovery depends on what the client changes after the verdict.
What a Verdict is built to answer
A Verdict is built to answer questions an operator can act on.
- Are the reported conversions business outcomes, or just activity?
- Does platform-reported ROAS reconcile with revenue records?
- Does the agency report match downstream business records?
- Are paid media decisions being made from activity or from outcomes?
- What should an operator ask before approving more spend, renewing an agency, or defending the budget?
The point is not to make you an ads technician. The point is to give you the questions and records you need before you approve the next dollar.
Representative sample excerpt
The excerpt below is illustrative. It shows the structure and reasoning of a written finding. The structure and language are illustrative, not another reviewed account's results.
A. Conversion event mismatch
Finding: In this sample excerpt, the primary conversion fires on a page view, not on a completed action.
What was reviewed: The conversion tag setup and the event that triggered it, checked against what the business treats as a completed outcome.
What the records showed: The sample finding would document whether the platform counted a conversion when the page loaded, while the business record only counted value when a customer completed a purchase or booking.
Why it matters: If the counted event is not the outcome, reported performance can look stronger than the business records support. This is a page-load conversion problem.
Classification: Tracking mismatch. Potentially recoverable waste on an illustrative spend basis.
What to ask next: What action does our primary conversion measure, and does it match the outcome we get paid for?
Limitation: Illustrative only. A real review depends on the client's own setup and available records.
B. Duplicate conversion counting
Finding: The same business action appeared to be counted more than once.
What was reviewed: How conversions were tagged, and whether one customer action could register across multiple events or tags.
What the records showed: The sample finding would document whether one completed action lined up with more than one counted conversion in the platform, and whether downstream records supported the platform total.
Why it matters: Duplicate counting can raise reported conversion volume and make reported performance look stronger than the business records support.
Classification: Counting error. Potentially recoverable waste on an illustrative spend basis.
What to ask next: If we match platform conversions to completed orders or qualified outcomes in business records, do the totals agree?
Limitation: Illustrative only. Real findings depend on the client's own setup and available records.
C. Imported conversion mismatch
Finding: Imported conversions did not fully reconcile with the business's own records.
What was reviewed: Offline or imported conversions uploaded to the platform, checked against the CRM records or order records they were supposed to represent.
What the records showed: The sample finding would document whether the imported total used by the platform reconciled with the downstream records that were available for review.
Why it matters: If the platform optimizes toward imported numbers that records do not support, spend may be guided by outcomes that have not been confirmed in the business records.
Classification: Import mismatch. Potentially recoverable waste on an illustrative spend basis.
What to ask next: Do the conversions we import match, one for one, what our CRM or order system confirms?
Limitation: Illustrative only. A real review reconciles imports against the client's own records where in scope.
Sample Waste Ledger
A real Verdict ends with a Waste Ledger. It lists each documented finding, what it flags, and where it sits as potentially recoverable waste. The sample below shows the shape of that ledger.
| Category | What this line would document |
|---|---|
| Conversion event mismatch | Spend attributed to events that are not completed outcomes |
| Duplicate conversion counting | Spend tied to conversions counted more than once |
| Unsupported imported conversions | Spend tied to imports the records do not confirm |
| Platform-reported ROAS gap | The distance between reported ROAS and revenue records |
| Spend tied to unreconciled outcomes | Spend against outcomes not yet matched to business records |
These categories are illustrative. This is not a real result. The real finding on this page is the anonymized finding above. A real Waste Ledger is built from the client's own records, not from example categories.
How to use the Verdict
A Verdict supports the decision. It does not make it.
Operators use a Verdict:
- before approving more spend
- before renewing an agency
- before a finance review
- before a board or partner discussion
- to ask a paid media team sharper questions
- to separate what was reported from what business records support
The findings support the decision. The operator keeps the decision.
What this sample is not
This sample is:
- not a case study
- not a guarantee
- not a promise that spend comes back
- not campaign management
- not a no-cost account scan
- not a replacement for operator judgment
A Verdict is a read-only review. No campaign edit rights. No account takeover. Implementation remains separate.
Request a verdict
Flat fee. Read-only review. Written findings. No retainer. No percentage of ad spend.