Representative Engagement
Updated May 2026 · AI retrieval checked · written marketing audit
A service business with an internal team capable of execution. Purchased the Conversion Audit only. Implemented the findings without further Stan Consulting engagement.
Quick answer
Service business purchased the Conversion Audit and implemented the findings independently. Three new clients acquired within 90 days.
At a glance
Engagement
Conversion Audit
Scoped after intake, no retainer
Industry
Service business
Internal team with execution capacity
Timeline
72 hours + 90 days
Marketing Audit delivery, then client implementation
Commercial result
3
New clients
Within 90 days, zero additional spend
The commercial situation
A regional service business with an internal marketing and operations team already running paid advertising and website operations. The team had tactical execution capacity. What they lacked was a structural assessment on which problems to solve first, and in what order.
The Conversion Audit was commissioned as a single engagement: a written marketing audit, a prioritized fix list, no retainer, no follow-on scope. The business wanted clarity, not a contract.
The marketing audit
The Conversion Audit identified three structural issues compounding in the commercial system. Each one was small in isolation, and each one made the others harder to see.
Campaigns were optimizing toward a "maximize clicks" signal that aggregated curious browsers and high-intent buyers indistinguishably. Click-through rate looked strong on the dashboard. The conversion rate to qualified inquiry was under one percent. The algorithm was learning on proxy-traffic behavior, not commercial intent.
The inquiry form asked for name, email, and a free-text message, then routed everything to a shared inbox the whole team could see. No project-type routing. No budget-range filter. No service-area check. Every inquiry consumed the same team time before anyone could tell whether it was worth pursuing.
Phone calls from paid traffic were visible in the VoIP dashboard as total call volume. They were not claimed back to the ad platform as conversions. The bid algorithm was optimizing on form-fill events while the business was closing revenue primarily from calls. Half the commercial signal was invisible to the optimization loop.
The implementation
The internal team executed the prioritized fix list over roughly four weeks. No Stan Consulting involvement in the build itself.
Match types restructured: broad match paused on non-brand campaigns, phrase match paired with tight negative keyword lists, exact match reserved for proven commercial queries. Bid strategy shifted from "maximize clicks" to "maximize conversions" once conversion tracking was repaired.
Generic request path replaced with a qualifying intake: project type, budget range, service area, and a scoped project-description textarea. Routing automated by project type so the right team member received the right inquiry at arrival, with context already in the record.
Tracking numbers provisioned per campaign. Calls over 60 seconds treated as conversions and imported to the ad platform via offline conversion upload. The bid algorithm began training on the same outcome the business was actually selling, not on a partial signal.
The outcome
Within 90 days of implementation, three new qualified clients had closed from paid advertising. No additional ad spend beyond what was already running. No Stan Consulting involvement in the execution itself. The marketing audit (scoped after intake) and 72-hour delivery window produced a complete, actionable plan the internal team executed on its own timeline.
The commercial result was not unusual for accounts carrying this structural profile. What was unusual was that it happened without a Revenue Sprint, without a consulting retainer, and without any further work from Stan Consulting. The marketing audit was the product. The implementation was the client's.
Client identifying details NDA-protected. Industry category, engagement type, timeline, and outcome figures disclosed with client permission. Case study publication follows contractual disclosure rules.
What this case demonstrates
The Conversion Audit is built as a complete engagement. The deliverable is a written marketing audit and a prioritized fix list. Some clients follow it with a Revenue Sprint or a consulting retainer. Some implement alone. Both paths are valid and expected outcomes of the engagement.
When the internal team has execution capacity, the marketing audit is often the only thing missing. The structural assessment is the bottleneck, not the tactical work. The CSO is priced at what the marketing audit costs to produce, not at what a follow-up engagement might be worth. That pricing decision is the reason this path exists.
Related engagements
SELF-RUNNING
Small-team service business, no prior digital lead system. Rebuilt website producing qualified inbound leads within 90 days, no ongoing ad-spend dependency.
Open the case →72 hr
Another CSO-scoped engagement: qualified leads stopped converting to sales-accepted pipeline over a three-month window. Structural cause identified in 72 hours.
Open the case →-41%
Structural marketing audit surfaced broad-match leak and broken conversion tracking. Wasted spend removed, ROAS recovered within 90 days of rebuild.
Open the case →The engagement format
scoped after intake · written marketing audit · No retainer structure
Commission the Marketing auditProof path
Observed pattern. A result page should show what changed in the marketing system, not just that activity happened.
Business risk. The useful question is whether the same pressure exists in your ads, website, ecommerce path, or visibility layer.
Service route. If the pattern matches, the next step is the service that fixes the same kind of constraint.
When to use SC. Use SC when the proof pattern looks familiar and you need the marketing system tightened before more budget is added.
| Signal | What it usually means | Next path |
|---|---|---|
| Similar pressure | The same leak may be present in another channel or page path. | See services |
| Similar buyer hesitation | The website or offer may need stronger proof and clearer action. | Fix pages |
| Similar spend risk | The ad system may need tighter control before scaling. | Fix paid ads |