Case study · four-store composite
Smaller stores, focused fixes and clearer numbers
- 37 → 4Store A: “linen storage basket with lid”, one of 24 tracked terms
- 28 → 3Store B: “fragrance free hand balm”, one of 18 tracked terms
- 42 → 5Store C: “waterproof dog long line”, one of 22 tracked terms
- 31 → 8Store D: “loose leaf breakfast tea tin”, one of 26 tracked terms
- Format
- Anonymous composite of four independent stores; each store’s results stay separate
- Stores
- Store A home storage, Store B personal care, Store C pet accessories, Store D specialty tea
- Market
- United States
- Channels
- Technical SEO, product feeds, purchase tracking, owner training
- Timeframe
- 10–12-week projects between June 29 and September 30, 2026
The challenge
Focused e-commerce fixes for smaller stores. Across four short projects, we diagnosed search visibility problems, repaired important SEO and product-data issues, and rebuilt purchase measurement. Featured tracked keywords moved into Google’s top 3, top 5 or top 10, depending on the store. Owners left with cleaner tracking, clearer reporting and practical instructions for maintaining their own numbers.
What we did
- Four independent US stores (home storage, personal care, pet accessories, specialty tea), each a 10–12-week project between June 29 and September 30, 2026: inherited noindex rules, competing variants, a stale sitemap and duplicate tag pages fixed store by store, with product-feed corrections alongside.
- Purchase tracking rebuilt in each store: GA4 e-commerce events, purchase as a key event, the native Google purchase action primary, and Meta browser and server events sharing an order-based event ID. Each owner got a maintenance list, event-checking instructions and a reporting walkthrough.
Results
- Store A, home storage: Search Console clicks 613 → 5,847 and average position 27.6 → 9.3 (28 days, June 1–28 vs August 24–September 20, 2026); “linen storage basket with lid” 37 → 4.
- Store B, personal care: clicks 428 → 3,961 and average position 32.4 → 10.1 (June 23–July 20 vs September 1–28, 2026); “fragrance free hand balm” 28 → 3.
- Store C, pet accessories: clicks 971 → 8,243 and average position 24.8 → 8.6 (June 8–July 5 vs August 31–September 27, 2026); “waterproof dog long line” 42 → 5.
- Store D, specialty tea: clicks 319 → 2,749 and average position 35.2 → 11.4 (June 25–July 22 vs September 3–30, 2026); “loose leaf breakfast tea tin” 31 → 8.
Data source
Google Search Console (Performance report, web search, property level), Ahrefs Rank Tracker (Google US desktop, a fixed keyword list per store), Google Ads and Meta Ads Manager campaign reports, Google Merchant Center product status, GA4 event settings and each store’s order ledger. Money in USD; ROAS is attributed purchase value divided by ad spend, not profit.
Screenshot (redacted)
Twenty-four report screenshots, six per store: Search Console, Google Ads, Meta Ads, Merchant Center and GA4.
What’s next
The projects are complete. Each owner keeps a prioritized maintenance list, and the follow-up list covers the remaining limited and newly reviewed products.
A composite of four separate stores: each store’s figures stand alone and are never added together. Keyword positions come from Ahrefs Rank Tracker (Google US desktop), a different measure from the Search Console property averages.


