Cross-Platform · Client / Account Review
Turn an account review into a clear client-ready plan.
Review the account from business context through measurement, budget, channel performance and opportunities. Record the evidence as you go, then generate a reusable summary for the client or internal team.
Define the account frame before reviewing performance.
Confirm goals, priorities and review context
Performance only makes sense relative to the business objective. Confirm what the account is trying to achieve, what changed since the last review and which outcomes actually matter before diagnosing platform metrics.
- Primary business objective and the paid media role in reaching it.
- Current commercial priorities, promotions, launches or market changes.
- Which platforms, markets and funnel stages are in scope.
- Whether the review period is comparable with the previous benchmark.
- Separate a business-priority change from a true performance issue.
- Flag seasonality, offer changes or operational constraints that distort comparisons.
- Align the review around the KPI the client actually uses to judge success.
Validate measurement and conversion quality
Do not optimize confidently against a number you do not trust. Confirm that primary conversion actions, attribution settings and backend outcomes still represent the business result the campaigns are supposed to drive.
- Primary versus secondary conversion actions on each platform.
- Pixel, tag, CAPI, GA4, ecommerce or offline conversion integrity.
- Duplicate events, missing values, attribution-window changes or broken UTMs.
- CRM, revenue or lead-quality evidence where platform conversions are only a proxy.
- Fix critical tracking issues before scaling or changing bidding aggressively.
- Separate platform-reported conversions from qualified or revenue-producing outcomes.
- Document attribution differences before comparing channels directly.
Use it for URL and UTM QA when campaign tracking structure may be contributing to reporting problems.
Check budget pacing and planned spend
Before judging channel performance, confirm whether spend is pacing to plan. An account that is materially under or over budget may require a different action from one that is simply inefficient.
- Total planned spend versus actual spend for the review period.
- Remaining budget and required daily pace.
- Platform or campaign areas materially ahead or behind plan.
- Whether budget allocation still reflects current business priorities.
- Correct pacing gaps early instead of forcing large end-of-period changes.
- Do not move budget only because one channel had a strong short-term result.
- Protect spend required for strategic or learning priorities where justified.
Compare planned and actual spend, then calculate the pace required to finish the period on budget.
Review channel mix and allocation
Compare channels as a portfolio rather than forcing every platform to play the same role. Some channels capture demand, some create it and some support retargeting or upper-funnel coverage.
- Spend and result contribution by platform, market and campaign role.
- Whether channel allocation reflects funnel role and business priority.
- Incremental capacity in strong channels versus saturation or limited volume.
- Areas where one platform is carrying too much of the acquisition plan.
- Reallocate only when efficiency, volume capacity and strategic role support it.
- Avoid comparing channels only on last-click CPA or ROAS when roles differ.
- Identify diversification or concentration risk before scaling further.
Model alternative allocation and expected performance before making large cross-channel budget changes.
Diagnose efficiency and contribution
Identify where spend is creating the strongest business outcome, where performance is deteriorating and whether the apparent change is material enough to deserve action.
- Spend, conversion volume, CPA, ROAS and revenue contribution where available.
- Current period versus a comparable previous period and business target.
- Top contributors, weak areas and campaigns with insufficient evidence.
- Whether blended account performance hides important campaign-level movement.
- Protect proven contributors before cutting broad areas of spend.
- Separate a traffic-quality problem from a conversion-rate or cost problem.
- Flag low-volume findings as uncertain instead of presenting them as conclusions.
Use profitability context when the account target needs to be translated into practical acquisition guardrails.
Review targeting and traffic quality
Look beyond blended efficiency and ask whether the account is reaching the right queries, audiences, placements, products and markets. This is where platform-specific deep dives become useful.
- Search-query relevance, audience quality, placements, markets and exclusions.
- Prospecting versus retargeting contribution and overlap where applicable.
- Wasted spend from irrelevant traffic, weak segments or poor inventory.
- Whether targeting constraints are limiting scale or protecting efficiency appropriately.
- Use platform evidence before broadening or tightening targeting.
- Separate poor traffic quality from weak creative or landing-page conversion.
- Escalate to the platform workflow when the finding needs deeper diagnosis.
Open the relevant optimization workflow when a channel needs a more detailed diagnostic pass.
Review creative and landing-page health
A media account can be structurally sound and still underperform because the message, creative coverage, offer or landing experience is weak. Review the full path from impression to intended action.
- Creative freshness, format coverage, message diversity and fatigue signals.
- Ad-to-landing-page message match and offer consistency.
- Landing-page conversion rate, mobile usability, speed and friction.
- Creative or landing-page gaps by audience, intent stage or campaign role.
- Do not solve a creative problem with targeting changes alone.
- Prioritize high-spend creative or landing-page gaps with clear downstream impact.
- Separate refresh ideas from structural media changes so results remain interpretable.
QA ad-copy structure and common creative issues before recommending a broader messaging refresh.
Check recent changes and operational issues
Performance shifts often follow a budget, bidding, targeting, creative, tracking or status change. Review meaningful account changes before treating the latest result as a new baseline.
- Budget, bid, target, audience, creative and campaign-status changes.
- Tracking, feed, landing-page or conversion-goal changes.
- Disapprovals, learning resets, limited delivery or account-access issues.
- Timing between major changes and the performance movement being discussed.
- Document changes that may explain current performance.
- Avoid immediately reversing a change before enough evidence accumulates.
- Reduce simultaneous changes when possible so cause and effect remain clearer.
Convert Google Ads and Meta Ads change-history exports into a cleaner reviewable changelog.
Identify opportunities, risks and dependencies
Turn the diagnosis into a short list of credible opportunities and blockers. A useful account review distinguishes what the paid media team can change directly from what depends on creative, development, sales or the client.
- Scalable winners, underfunded opportunities and untested high-value areas.
- Measurement, creative, landing-page, feed or sales-process blockers.
- Risks from concentration, saturation, unstable tracking or limited conversion volume.
- Dependencies requiring client, creative, analytics or development support.
- Prioritize opportunities by expected impact, confidence and implementation effort.
- Keep speculative ideas separate from evidence-backed recommendations.
- Assign ownership when an opportunity cannot be executed by paid media alone.
Model budget changes and scenario ranges before presenting a material scaling opportunity as the next move.
Build the account review summary
Convert the review into a concise account narrative. Keep the strongest findings, clearly separate immediate actions from tests and surface any measurement issue that changes how confidently performance can be interpreted.