Questions for the outgoing vendor, and how we take the marketing over

At CBC's own email close rate of 1.54%, eleven leads are expected to produce 0.17 sales. The chance of seeing exactly zero, even if the channel works perfectly, is 84.3%. Zero is the single most likely outcome of eleven leads.

So the email line is unmeasured, not disproven. The Meta line is the strongest of the three claims and still only 15.7% likely to show zero by chance, which is suggestive and not conclusive.

Say this before anyone concludes the vendor failed. Telling CBC their vendor produced nothing would be a number that cannot carry the weight, and it is the same shape as the mistake that nearly cost the contract before.

About 86% of CBC's sold business carries no campaign tag at all. Every figure here is read off the remaining 14%.

Tags are also actively destroyed: on 1 Sep we measured our own test tag overwriting a real Meta lead's source, because the system keeps the last value written. Every count on this page is a floor, not a total.

A full export of the campaign database - content, send dates, lists used, links included, for every campaign to date. This is the single most useful artifact on his sheet: it is the only thing that turns "11 leads, 0 sales" into a measurable statement.

Full historical performance - spend, leads and conversions by campaign, broken out separately for CBC Ins and Costco Quote. The split matters. Those two brands must never be blended, and a combined figure would be unusable.

The email and CRM platform name. We do not know what they send from. Until we do, the send logs cannot be matched to anything.

Lookalike seed lists. What the audiences were built from determines whether they are worth inheriting at all.

The full history of flagged issues, from both sides, not just the recent lead-routing problem.

Measured across the whole tagged population on 31 Aug:

The Costco placement is the business. It is not the outgoing vendor's, it is not at risk from the offboarding, and if the instinct is to copy what works it points here first. The work there is protecting and measuring the placement, not rebuilding an email programme.

OpenAnd CBC's best-performing tagged email programme is not the outgoing vendor's either. A separate programme carries 1,620 records on a completely different naming convention, 162 times their volume, with 25 sales against their zero. Nobody on our side knows whose programme it is. That is the single highest-value question on this page.

utm_source who sent it · utm_medium the channel type · utm_campaign the send · utm_term the audience · utm_content the slot

The one change: the channel-type field must always say email and nothing else. Today CBC's largest single value in that field is a Costco web address, on 12,389 records, and "Facebook" sits there on another 13. Both are the same mistake: a place or a platform written where a channel type belongs. It makes the reporting compare things that are not comparable, and it is the one defect a convention actually prevents.

Our replacement kit is generated, not typed: 65 tagged links across the five sends, and the channel type is a constant in the generator so the defect cannot come back.

Every figure states the population it came from. A count of records is not a count of deals, and a count of deals is not a count of sales. Where two measurements exist at different grains they are given separately rather than blended, because blending them produces a number that is true of nothing.

Where a number cannot support a conclusion, the page says so instead of rounding up to one. The email line is the clearest case: 0 sales from 11 leads is the single most likely outcome even of a channel working perfectly, so it is reported as unmeasured. That restraint is the whole reason the rest of the page can be trusted.

Nothing here is an estimate. Each figure was read from CBC's own CRM, from the vendor's own documents, or from the tracking instruments, on a dated pull.

"I need one documented owner per service." Addressed. Our rows carry a single owner and an acceptance test.

"The reporting is critical. Right now it is not working, so we cannot show proof of concept." The dashboard is live and behind a per-person sign-in; access mail is staged. The channel breakdown she has been asking for is now on it, with its coverage stated on the face of the card.

"How many sales came from this and paid ads, to reassess." Paid ads answered 5 Aug. The email half is drafted and waiting on Joseph.

She has asked for a price three times and never received one at the scope she asked. That, not the number, is the open item. Not for this call.

We can evidence five service lines and no more (section 1a). The gap between that list and whatever they describe is itself the finding. Listen specifically for anything touching a website, a form, or a phone: those are capture surfaces, and a capture surface nobody told us about is invisible to every number on this page.

The question we would add: is anything being sent, run or managed under a CBC brand from an account that is not in CBC's name? That is the general form of every ask in section 2.

Mostly theirs to answer. The one part that matters to us is who has been responsible for campaign link tagging, because the 30 Jul agenda put "assign one owner for campaign link management" in writing and it is not clear it ever happened. Their tagging is 98.7% clean, so somebody has been doing it carefully. Find out who, because that person's convention is the one being inherited.

Ask what the reports actually contained, not just their cadence and format. If leads or conversions were reported per campaign, those figures can be reconciled against CBC's own CRM, and any gap between the two is worth understanding before anyone draws a conclusion from either.

His question about the full history of flagged issues is the right shape. The recent lead-routing problem is unlikely to be the first.

Consistency of tagging: on the July sends, 78 links, 77 correct, one malformed. The bad one lost its channel and campaign into the source value. That is a good record and worth saying so.

Meta vs FB vs FB/IG: visible in CBC's data, not only in the ad account. The platform name is being written into the channel-type field on 13 records, against 61 distinct source values portal-wide.

How a Meta lead reaches HubSpot: we can describe the path from the source of CBC's own systems, including a condition on one funnel that skips the campaign tags entirely. That answer is ours to give.

The pixel question is the one to press. If a pixel was never firing on one of the two brands, that changes what the Meta numbers mean retrospectively, and it is checkable in minutes.

The export is the single most valuable artifact on his sheet. Without it, "11 leads, 0 sales" stays unmeasurable in either direction, permanently.

Insist on the brand split. CBC Ins and Costco Quote must never be blended: they are different products with different funnels and different close rates, and a combined figure is true of neither. This is a standing rule on our side and it is not a preference.

When they name their best-performing campaigns, ask what data supports it and at what grain. Clicks and opens are not sales, and the gap between the two is where most channel arguments live.

TCPA consent language is the highest-consequence item on his sheet and the only one with a liability tail. If outbound calling or texting has been running on consent that does not support it, that exposure belongs to CBC and it does not end when the vendor does. Ask it early, while there is time on the clock.

Lookalike seeds determine whether the audiences are worth inheriting. An audience built from a list nobody can describe is not an asset.

The sending platform name is a prerequisite for every other email question. Until it is known, send logs cannot be matched to anything.

His eleven-item checklist is the right instrument and we would not change it. Three of them behave differently from the other eight, and the call should treat them differently:

Meta assets, Google Ads, and the automations are the only items that cannot be recovered later at any price. Everything else on his list can be reconstructed, slowly or expensively, if it is missed. These three cannot: audiences must be re-accumulated, ad account history does not transfer retroactively, and a lapsed automation stops lead flow with no error anywhere.

So if the call runs short, those three are what must be nailed down. The other eight can go in writing afterwards.