Case study · four-store composite
Smaller stores, focused fixes and clearer numbers
- 117 of 156Store A: unique ad-attributed orders of its unique paid orders, closing 28 days
- 153 of 203Store B: unique ad-attributed orders of its unique paid orders, closing 28 days
- 134 of 184Store C: unique ad-attributed orders of its unique paid orders, closing 28 days
- 87 of 127Store D: unique ad-attributed orders of its unique paid orders, closing 28 days
- 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), 10–12-week projects in 2026. The measurement fixes: purchase reporting deduplicated (Store A), dynamic order values and currency in place of a fixed purchase value (Store B), browser/server purchase deduplication checked (Store C) and checkout referral handling fixed (Store D).
- Each store finishes with GA4 e-commerce events, purchase marked as a key event, dynamic transaction IDs, USD currency and values, and matching item identifiers. The native Google purchase action stays primary and the GA4 import secondary; Meta browser and server Purchase events share an order-based event ID.
- Each owner learned to compare equal periods, check feed issues, investigate a purchase event and tell sales, attribution and profit apart.
Results
- Store A (August 24–September 20, 2026): Google Ads 73 purchases and Meta 61, with 17 orders ($1,084.79) credited by both, so 117 unique ad-attributed orders ($7,341.32); 39 other orders ($2,423.51) reconcile the ledger to 156 orders and $9,764.83 in net merchandise sales.
- Store B (September 1–28, 2026): Google Ads 81 and Meta 93, 21 shared ($814.79), so 153 unique ad-attributed orders ($5,748.94); 50 other orders ($1,876.04) make 203 orders and $7,624.98.
- Store C (August 31–September 27, 2026): Google Ads 89 and Meta 64, 19 shared ($1,526.48), so 134 unique ad-attributed orders ($10,477.62); 50 other orders ($3,890.23) make 184 orders and $14,367.85.
- Store D (September 3–30, 2026): Google Ads 52 and Meta 48, 13 shared ($654.78), so 87 unique ad-attributed orders ($4,266.52); 40 other orders ($1,881.41) make 127 orders and $6,147.93.
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. These are closing-period results; no paid before/after improvement is claimed, and ad values exclude tax and shipping.
