DC3-AI Performance Optimisation

Home / Examples / Online retail

Example · periodic management pack

The management pack, on your rhythm

Weekly, fortnightly or monthly: the pack follows your business’s own cycle, not the calendar. Read the first page in five minutes, or open any section and follow the trend down to each product, each campaign group and each deviation.

Management pack · sales, marketing and profitVolume still growing; cost per order still 41% above last year; the repricing moved the money
Cycle 20, day 7 of 14 · projected ±15%
All ad accounts · every order counted once

The message

  1. Volume keeps growing.Cycle 20 is on pace for 1,503 orders, in line with the tracker’s smoothed average of 1,465; its first week (751) is 21% ahead of the same days last year. The last three cycles run 15% ahead of last year and the year to date 19%. Cycle 19 closed at 1,469, 5% ahead.
  2. The cost has not come down, and the rebuilt search campaigns are still the dearest source.Cost per order is $123 over the last three cycles against $88 a year ago (+41%, far past its usual swing); against the six cycles before it is 7% higher, inside its swing. Rebuilt search costs $248 per credited sale, 56% more than last year’s $159. Profit after own ad spend on the nine products is $257K a cycle against $281K last year (−9%), Product Delta the largest part. Brand search is not part of the problem.
  3. The repricing moved the money as intended.In cycle 20’s first week group A spent $30K (all of cycle 19: $33K) and group B $16K (all of cycle 19: $53K). Whether A’s extra spend buys sales at or under break-even is first read mid-cycle 21 and decided on cycles 20 and 21 together. Until B is at or under break-even, the next two restructures stay parked.

Headline numbers

Orders, cycle 20 pacing
1,503
range 1,278–1,727 · cycle 19 1,469
Orders vs last year
+15%
last 3 cycles · 1,465 a cycle vs 1,275
Cost per order
$122
last 3 $123 · +7% vs prior 6 · +41% vs last year
Ad spend, projected
$184K
cycle 19 $180K · +2% · +30% on last year
Gross contribution, projected
$268K
cycle 19 $251K · same cycle last year $213K
Volume and cost per order on pace for 1,503: the business is still growing

Cycle 20 took 751 orders in its first seven days, 21% ahead of the same days last year (622). The tracker projects 1,503 (range 1,278–1,727), in line with its smoothed average of 1,465. The year to date is 25,932, +19%. Cycle 19 closed at 1,469 after six orders were cancelled with nothing bought, 5% ahead of last year’s 1,404. No decline at the level of the whole business: the tracker reads Growing.

Cost, by source every source at its usual cost against the prior six, but rebuilt search is 56% dearer than last year
Campaign typeSalescycle 20, proj.Cost per salecycle 20, proj.Cost per salelast 3 cyclesvs prior 6vs last yearShare of spend
Brand search139$29$26−20%−2%2%
Search, rebuilt (groups A and B)275$333$248+10%+56%43%
Search, not yet rebuilt309$202$244+14%+26%38%
Product shopping95$187$132+0%+21%11%
General shopping27$148$151−15%+29%3%
Other paid48$93$122+26%−20%3%
All paid sources887$207$187+8%+42%100%
Cost per order (all spend ÷ all orders)1,503$122$123+7%+41%–

Against the prior six cycles no campaign type moved beyond its usual swing. Against the same three cycles last year, rebuilt search (+56%), the search not yet rebuilt (+26%), all paid (+42%) and cost per order (+41%) are dearer beyond it. So far in cycle 20, rebuilt search is heading dearer ($333 a credited sale against $248) as group A’s spend rose after the repricing, and product shopping too ($187 against $132). Rebuilt search is the line to fix; the repricing is the fix under test.

Red is beyond that line’s usual swing: 1.5 times the median swing in its own history, or 25% either way, whichever is smaller. Everything else is inside its swing: treat it as noise. Cycle 20 is projected from seven days; tested over 35 closed cycles, the first-week cost per sale landed on average within 1% of the close, with no lean either way.

Gross contribution cycle 19 gave back 10% on last year; cycle 20 is projecting ahead

Cycle 19: $251K, 10% below last year’s $277K (last year’s strongest cycle), on 5% more orders. Ad spend of $180K against $116K absorbed the growth. Cycle 20 projects $268K against $213K last year, from seven days, against a dear cycle last year.

A caveat we state rather than hide: labour is charged as a fixed share of every order, as if it were fully variable. Much of it is fixed in the short run, so this line penalises a strong cycle and flatters a weak one. Read the trend, not the single cycle.

Profit, by product level with the prior six, 9% below last year; Products Delta, Gamma and Epsilon give profit back
Cash contribution before labourProfit after labour
ProductOrderscycle 20, proj.Cycle 20proj.Last 3per cyclevs prior 6vs last yearCycle 20proj.Last 3per cyclevs prior 6vs last year
Product Delta286$104K$129K−4%−19%$62K$81K−7%−24%
Product Alpha286$127K$98K+11%+5%$74K$56K+7%−2%
Product Zeta102$49K$46K+13%+69%$29K$26K+15%+72%
Product Epsilon190$44K$44K+21%−5%$28K$27K+20%−15%
Product Eta122$29K$38K+27%+51%$14K$20K+24%+38%
Product Gamma197$31K$33K−26%−21%$16K$17K−35%−30%
Product Beta82$31K$31K+15%−6%$20K$20K+16%−10%
Product Theta82$22K$14K+6%−4%$14K$8.5K+8%−19%
Product Iota41$1.8K$8.9K−19%+171%−$3.1K$1.8K−60%—
Nine products together1,387$441K$442K+4%+0%$253K$257K+0%−9%

Over the last three cycles, profit after each product’s own ad spend is level with the prior six and 9% below last year. Products Delta, Gamma and Epsilon give profit back against last year. Cycle 20 is heading level ($253K projected against $257K a cycle): Product Alpha carries it ($74K against $56K), Product Delta runs below its average ($62K against $81K), and Product Iota projects a loss after its own spend.

Cash contribution = orders × each product’s contribution per order before labour (net income after credit notes, less parts, stock, indirect costs, payment fees and shipping), minus the product’s own search and shopping spend. Profit = the same after labour. Spend no product owns (brand search, general shopping, other paid) sits in gross contribution above. Coloured only beyond each product’s usual swing; the total row has no band.

Campaign groups against break-even three cycles after the rebuild: 22% more sales at 22% more per sale; group B is the only one losing money
Since the rebuild (3.0 cycles)Credited salesCost per salevs break-evenProfit vs break-even
Old campaigns: what they would have given~772$22468%+$80K
Group A: the profit group337$30391%+$9.8K
Group B: the reprice pool354$435137%−$41K
Live groups alone (A + B)690$371114%−$32K
Old campaigns’ trailing credit: no spend, valued at break-even245––+$82K
All own search, actual: live groups + trailing credit935$27484%+$51K
Product shopping, same five products (for comparison)269$13441%+$51K

Rows add up: A + B = the live groups; live groups + trailing credit = all own search. The trailing credit is sales credited since the switch to clicks the old campaigns bought before it, valued at each product’s break-even, so the whole search book is read before the A / B split.

Since the rebuild, the whole search book has 935 credited sales against the 772 the old campaigns would have given (+22%), at $274 a sale against $224: $51K of profit against break-even, where the old campaigns would have made $80K. Group B is the only group losing money ($435 a sale, −$41K against break-even); group A makes money ($303 a sale), but less than before.

The driver: the money moved, but the sales cannot be read yet. Group A’s higher target and bid cap, and group B’s lower target, moved the spend as intended. Cycle 20’s cost per sale is not a verdict; the first read is mid-cycle 21. Product Iota’s slower week is not the repricing; on Product Eta’s group B it is not ruled out.

Brand search 97% impression share, none lost to budget; credited sales up at the same cost
MeasureCycle 19Last 3Prior 6Last 3, last yearvs prior 6vs last year
Spend per cycle$4.0K$4.0K$3.9K$3.1K+3%+28%
Credited sales (after the brand discount)143153119116+28%+30%
Cost per credited sale$28$26$33$26−20%−2%
Closing clicks (sales it closed, before the discount)435445343330+31%+35%
Search impression share96%97%97%95%+0.2 pt+2.3 pt
Lost to rank4%3%3%6%−0.2 pt−2.3 pt
Lost to budget0%0%0%0%0.0 pt0.0 pt

Brand search is read on impression share, closing clicks and its cost trend, not against a break-even. Credited sales are after the brand discount: the first brand click in a sale’s journey earns 30% of the credit a product-search click would, so the credited figure is deliberately low.

Products: the deviations behind the numbers

No product changed its signal this week. Product Delta is still declining and Product Gamma still easing; Product Alpha is fast in cycle 20; Products Iota and Eta are slower. Open a product for where it moved, where its sales came from, what changed, and the read.

Product Delta Declining · held at Developing the biggest product, a slow leak: 6% below last year and search sales at twice last year’s cost
Cycle 20 pacing286 (143 so far)
3-cycle average330 · smoothed 326
Trend−6% on last year · prior six −2%
Cost per order, last 3$106 · +19% vs prior 6 · +32% vs last year

Where: the last three cycles run 6% below last year (smoothed) and every trend window points down; cycle 20 is paced at 286 against its smoothed 326. Declining on every watcher since cycle 18; the moderator holds the call at Developing because volume is still healthy.

Sources of its sales (cycle 19 against the same cycle last year):

  • Organic 119 against 143
  • Own search 95 against 119, at $318 a sale against $162
  • General-catalogue shopping 7 against 34: last year’s catalogue campaign is paused
  • Other campaigns 48 against 17, the other way

Changes: both search groups’ daily budgets were raised in cycle 19, then the cycle-19 repricing.

Read: fewer organic and search sales, and search at twice last year’s cost per sale. Mid-cycle 21 is the first read of the repricing on the biggest product.

Product Gamma Easing · Confirmed still ahead of last year, but growing 9.6 points slower; a shopping gap and dearer search
Cycle 20 pacing197 (99 so far)
3-cycle average207 · smoothed 224
Trend+4% on last year · prior six +14%
Cost per order, last 3$122 · +28% vs prior 6 · +26% vs last year

Where: +4% on last year over the last three cycles, 9.6 points slower than the six before; cycle 20 is paced at 197 against its smoothed 224. Growing in cycles 18 and 19, Easing since cycle 20.

Sources of its sales (cycle 19 against the same cycle last year):

  • Own shopping 20 against 58: last year’s shopping campaign is paused
  • Own search 65 against 68, at $342 a sale against $147
  • Organic 75 against 68

Changes: none on its own campaigns for five weeks.

Read: a shopping gap and dearer search. The cycle-20 close decides whether Easing becomes Declining.

Product Alpha Growing 16% ahead of last year and a very strong week; cost per order is the watch
Cycle 20 pacing286 (143 so far)
3-cycle average224 · smoothed 214
Trend+16% on last year · prior six +7%
Cost per order, last 3$109 · +24% vs prior 6 · +76% vs last year

Where: +16% on last year over the last three cycles; cycle 20 is paced at 286, well above its smoothed 214. Growing on every watcher since cycle 18.

Sources of its sales (cycle 19 against the same cycle last year):

  • Organic 78 against 88
  • Own search 71 against 68, at $312 a sale against $138

Changes: the agency raised group A’s daily budget by about 70% at the end of cycle 20’s first week.

Read: one strong week. Where it came from, and what group A now costs, are read at the cycle-20 close.

Product Eta Growing · Confirmed rise 22% above the six cycles before, but group B was credited with almost no sales this week
Cycle 20 pacing122 (61 so far)
3-cycle average143 · smoothed 133
Trend+22% vs prior six · a 3.0-standard-deviation rise
Cost per order, last 3$111 · +7% vs prior 6 · +40% vs last year

Where: the last three cycles 133 against 109 over the prior six (smoothed, a confirmed rise); cycle 20 is paced at 122, though its first week (61) is level with cycle 19’s.

Sources of its sales (cycle 19 against the same cycle last year):

  • Organic 51 against 27
  • Own search 41 against 37, at $355 a sale against $92

Changes: the cycle-19 repricing; group B’s ads were rewritten this week.

Underneath the level week: group B’s clicks held (129 to 124 a day, before against after) with nothing lost to budget, yet B was credited with only 3 sales in seven days. Shopping gave some back; organic and other campaigns made up the difference.

Read: not a traffic cut, and the repricing is not ruled out on group B. Re-read at the cycle-20 close and mid-cycle 21.

Product Iota Steady · cost is the issue volume steady, but its own search spend has doubled without more orders
Cycle 20 pacing41 (20 so far)
3-cycle average58 · smoothed 54
Trend−6% vs prior six · 0.4 standard deviations: noise
Cost per order, last 3$148 · +66% vs prior 6 · −17% vs last year

Where: steady on the six before; cycle 20 is paced at 41 against its three-cycle average of 58. Declining in cycles 18 and 19, Steady since cycle 20.

Sources of its sales (cycle 19 against the same cycle last year):

  • Organic 34 against 17
  • Own search 17 against 7, at $561 a sale against a $181 break-even

Changes: the cycle-19 repricing; group B’s ads were rewritten this week.

Not the repricing: the week’s shortfall is organic and brand search, and own search rose. Group B’s clicks held (71 to 70 a day) and group A’s rose (16 to 19), with no budget limit. Profit after its own spend is $1.8K a cycle against $4.9K before.

Read: the week is noise on a handful of orders. The cost of its search campaigns is the question for the agency.

The rest, healthy: Product Epsilon Growing (+20% on last year) · Product Zeta Growing (102 against 88 over the prior six, low confidence) · Product Beta Growing (an emerging rise) · Product Theta Steady. Each has cycle 20 in line with or above its average.
Next what gets read, and when
Cycle 20 closeProducts Iota and Eta re-read (Eta’s group B); whether Product Gamma moves from Easing to Declining; where Product Alpha’s jump came from
Early cycle 21The agency’s verdict on the rebuild as a whole; the next two restructures follow only once group B is at or under break-even
Mid-cycle 21First read of the repricing, once cycle 20’s sales have matured; the tracker gains a cost read per product
End of cycle 21Verdict on the repricing, cycles 20 and 21 together
Basis how every number is counted

Orders are counted once per customer checkout, from the order system, and reconciled to the accounts. Credited sales use our own attribution rule on raw click journeys (first and last click weighted, brand clicks discounted, a 90-day click window); the ad platforms’ own conversion counts are not used. Cost per sale = spend ÷ credited sales over the window, read on the tracker’s shape: the last three cycles against the six before and against last year, coloured only beyond the measure’s own usual swing. Break-even = full cost per order including labour and shipping. Gross contribution = orders × each product’s contribution per order before advertising, minus all ad spend, two-product orders counted once.

Example from client work. Products renamed Alpha to Iota and every figure scaled, so the business cannot be identified.