methodology
Every engagement starts with an objective - the work is getting three things right against it.
Targeting (the right people). Messaging (the right thing said to them). Tracking (measuring whether it drove the correct action). The methodology is how these three stay honest across every channel, every engagement, every cycle. Hundreds of audited accounts behind every claim.
Targeting - the right people
Being in front of the right people. Geo, demographics, interests, search intent, lookalikes, retargeting - targeting is how we make sure the money goes to people who could reasonably become customers, not to impressions that go nowhere. Precision over volume, always. A campaign reaching half as many people but the right half is worth more than one reaching everyone and hoping.
The targeting audit surface ->
Messaging - the right thing said
Saying the right thing to them. The offer, the creative, the copy, the positioning, the format. Good targeting wasted by bad messaging is money lit on fire; the right people have to be told something that actually moves them. Under messaging we work in themes - each piece of creative anchored to a specific pain point, differentiator, or angle. This is what lets us actually measure what works across Google, Meta, email, and anywhere else marketing shows up.
What messaging findings look like ->
Tracking - the right action measured
Measuring whether it drove the correct action - across every channel, not just paid. Email, landing pages, organic - if it's part of your mix, it's in the measurement system. Tracking is the control point. Strong tracking makes weaker targeting and messaging partially self-correct, because the system can route budget toward what's working. Without it, optimization is guessing.
It's a cycle, not a checklist
The three buckets aren't a phased delivery. They're a system that cycles. What tracking tells you reshapes targeting. New targeting changes what messaging should say. Sharper messaging demands tracking measure different things. Every engagement runs this cycle on a steady cadence, and each turn makes the next one tighter.
The methodology is a framework, not a shackle. The same three questions get asked every cycle; what changes is what the data says the answers should be.
Plans that don't break on contact with execution
Most agency audits produce a strategy deck. Strategy-by-deck, handed off for someone else to implement, is where a lot of recommendations go to die - the plan assumed features the platform doesn't have, integrations the CRM doesn't support, budgets the client won't actually sign off on.
The audits on this site don't have that gap. Every recommendation is checked against what the account, the platform, and the client can realistically do before it's written down. Plans that are feasibility-checked against what the account and platform can actually support - so nothing in the strategy assumes what reality won't deliver.
The bar is the same for prospects as for clients
Most agency audits are designed to manufacture alarm the agency then profits from. The bar gets lower once the prospect is paying. That's a trust problem the moment the client notices - and every client eventually notices.
The audits this site runs measure prospects against the exact same rubric the paying clients live under. Our standards don't change when the check clears. The only thing that changes is what the audit can see: prospects are audited from public surfaces, clients add the authenticated view (Ads Editor, GTM, CRM). Same checks; more evidence.
Want to see this run on your account?
Send me your domain. I'll send back an audit applying the full methodology. Free. No call required.
Get the audit