HOK came to us with a problem that is far more common than most founders admit to: the numbers did not agree with each other. Meta reported one set of results, Shopify reported another, and spend kept going out of the door while nobody could say with confidence which channel was actually paying for itself.
That is not a reporting inconvenience. When the measurement is wrong, every decision downstream is a guess — which campaigns to scale, which to cut, what a customer is really worth. The brand was not short of activity. It was short of a reliable picture.
What we looked at first
Before touching a campaign, we worked out where the discrepancies came from and which number to trust. That meant going through the tracking setup end to end, reconciling platform-reported performance against what the store actually recorded, and establishing a single version of the truth both sides of the business could use.
Only then does it make sense to ask what to change. With the measurement settled, the leaks were visible — and more importantly, they could be ranked.
Fixing them in a sequence
The order mattered as much as the fixes. Each change was made where it would compound rather than where it was easiest, and measured against the reconciled numbers rather than the platform's own account of itself. That is what made the result legible to the team afterwards: they could see which change produced which movement.
Where it landed
Revenue grew 2.5×, orders tripled, and customer acquisition cost came down 20% while an additional 30% ROI came through. The figures held because the underlying measurement held.