Marketing audit. Before another channel gets optimised.
Your marketing is running. The question is whether it carries.
Google Ads deliver clicks, SEO rankings, the website visitors. I examine what the business gets out of it: where it carries, where it breaks, and what that costs.
ON THE TABLE
More visibility, better leads, more revenue from marketing.
THE DECISION BEFORE
Which demand should marketing serve, for which offer?
WHAT IT COSTS TO LEAVE IT OPEN
The budget buys numbers nobody can say will turn into revenue.
“We do a lot, and I can’t say what any of it achieves.”
Every channel has its number. None of them says what the business gets from it.
“Our agencies optimise their areas. Nobody connects them.”
Everyone optimises their own area. The result belongs to no one.
“We’re planning a relaunch, new campaigns, more budget.”
More budget on a system nobody has examined buys the same mistake, only bigger.
Four suppliers, four areas, four reports. Nobody is responsible for what lies between. That’s where the money goes.
Five zones. Five decisions.
An account, a website, a ranking can each be checked on their own, and on their own they are often fine. The system loses money in between. That’s why I read five zones. Behind each one sits a decision the marketing runs on. I check whether it has been made.
Demand. Which demand should be served, and which not?
Visibility. What does the business need to be found for?
Offer. What is sold to whom, at what price?
Path. Which path should a prospect take, from first contact to close?
Economics. From when does a path pay off, and from when does it get ended?
Three words. And the decisions behind them.
Each zone ends in one of three verdicts: carries, breaks, unknown. Unknown means: decisions are made here without knowing on what basis. That is not a detail. It marks an open point in the system.
Numbers show where something stands out. They don’t say why. So I examine the decisions behind the numbers: Why does budget flow exactly there? Why is the offer built this way? Why does the website lead down this path? And which of these decisions dates from a time when the business was a different one? Often the problem isn’t in the channel. It sits in a decision nobody ever reviewed.
The next step. And what can follow from it.
The fit call. Twenty minutes. You tell me what’s working and what isn’t. I listen. Afterwards the scope is set: which zones, which accounts, which people. The price is set with it.
The Marketing Audit. I get access to what the scope covers: accounts, Analytics, Search Console, tracking, CRM, offer structure, landing pages, budget allocation, contribution margins, agency setups. Not everything gets read, only what carries the findings. Two to four conversations, with you and with the people it depends on. Then I read. Afterwards: the Report. Five zones, one word each. Where money is lost, with a figure. And the one decision that comes first. Handed over bound, in person. No dashboard, no list of 47 ideas. If marketing isn’t the boundary: the Forensic.
The Report says whether it stays at that. Two things can follow. Neither has to.
The Rebuild. If the Report fails what you don’t want to put right yourself: offer, path, measurement, budget reset. Afterwards: the operating manual, so your team and your suppliers work to it.
The Direction Mandate. If someone is to hold the direction afterwards: quarter by quarter, what carried, what didn’t, what goes. Every quarter, the Decision Letter.
What the audit isn’t.
Not a Google Ads audit. There’s a separate page for that. Not an SEO check, not a rating of your agency, not a list of best practices. The question isn’t whether you do marketing right. The question is whether it carries as a system.
Three cases.
A broad budget, many channels, and nobody knows what carries.
Case 01 · €180,000 a year released
Came with: “We spend more every year and don’t know what any of it does.”
Underneath: The budget was spread across channels before anyone had decided which offer should grow.
Decision: Channels consolidated, initiatives stopped. Budget only on what carries.
Effect: €180,000 of annual budget released, same visibility.
Five target groups, four channels, and nothing takes hold.
Case 06 · Prices 30 percent higher, margin up
Came with: “We’re on everything, and nothing takes hold.”
Underneath: One offer for five target groups, clear to none. Four channels, none with weight.
Decision: Three target groups and two channels cut. Prices raised by 30 percent.
Effect: Better clients, a focused team, higher margin. Within one quarter.
The business runs well. Only nobody knows any more where the customers come from.
Case 07 · 35% more revenue, same team
Came with: “It’s running. But we no longer know where the customers actually come from.”
Underneath: A separate path through website and sales for every target group and every offer. None with the full weight.
Decision: Two paths. The entire budget behind them.
Effect: 35% more revenue, same team.
“Not optimised on the surface but analysed in depth. The result: a measurable rise in organic traffic and a markedly better conversion rate.”CEO · B2B services · translated
“The whole customer journey rethought, from first contact to close. The decisive touchpoints identified, optimised, made measurable.”Head of Customer Journey · Sharing economy · translated
Let’s find where your marketing loses money.
Marketing doesn’t get better because more gets optimised. It gets better once it’s established where the system breaks.
Twenty minutes. Afterwards the scope is set, and you know whether an audit makes sense.