CASE STUDY · ANALYTICS · ANONYMIZED · SPIRITS
Reconciling the numbers across markets and platforms.
Reconciliation
Delivered
Sources
Sprinklr
Meta-native
GA4
CRM
Numbers diverge
Framework
Canonical definitions
Monthly check cadence
Escalation paths
Tied out
Documented
Multi-market
Client
Anonymized — Spirits portfolio brand
Industry
Premium spirits
Service area
Analytics & GTM (data quality)
Engagement type
Project (data quality consultancy)
Status
Delivered
01 — The brief
A premium spirits brand inside a multi-brand portfolio, with marketing performance data flowing in from many tools across many markets — and numbers that didn’t tie out. The CRM was reporting one set of figures. The social listening tool was reporting another. The native platform reporting from Meta and others didn’t match the aggregator. GA4 told its own story.
Nobody had built any of this badly. It had grown organically across years — different tools added at different times, by different teams, with different conventions. The kind of analytics situation that’s not anyone’s fault but is everyone’s problem when leadership asks how the brand is performing.
The brief was specific: figure out where the numbers are diverging, why, and build a framework the team can use to keep them tied out going forward.
02 — What we did
01
Audit and reconciliation
Pulled the same metric across tools — social engagement reported in Sprinklr vs. Meta-native vs. native LinkedIn, traffic reported in GA4 vs. UTM-tracked landing-page conversions, CRM activity vs. email platform reports. Where they diverged, mapped the divergence to a specific cause: timing differences, definitional differences, sampling issues, configuration drift, or genuine data gaps.
02
Reconciliation framework
Documented the canonical definition of every metric the team reported on — what counts as a session, what counts as engagement, what counts as a conversion, in which tool, with what time horizon. The unsexy work of agreeing what words mean before agreeing what numbers mean.
03
Check cadence
Monthly reconciliation routine across the major reporting surfaces, with escalation paths for when divergence exceeds expected variance. Built so the in-house team can run it themselves rather than depending on us to flag drift.
04
Multi-market coverage
The portfolio operates across multiple markets, each with its own tool configuration, agency partners, and reporting cadence. The framework had to work across that variance — consistent enough that leadership can compare markets, flexible enough that local teams aren’t forced into reporting that doesn’t match their reality.
03 — How the engagement runs
Fixed-price project. Six-week engagement covering audit, framework design, and team handoff. Delivered as a written framework, a reconciliation playbook, and the documented metric definitions — plus working sessions with the analytics team to align on how the cadence runs going forward. Execution sat with the in-house team.
04 — What changed
“
When leadership asks how the brand is performing, the answer is consistent regardless of which tool the team pulls it from. When they don’t tie out, there’s a documented reason and a process for resolving it.
The more durable change: a reconciliation discipline that compounds. Each month the team runs the cadence, finds drift earlier, and fixes it with less archaeology than the last cycle. The marketing team stopped defending numbers in meetings and started discussing what to do about them.
Most analytics agencies sell GA4 implementation and dashboard design. Few sell reconciliation as a real practice. This engagement was the latter — closer to detective work than to dashboard design — and it’s the kind of work that tends to be underestimated until someone has to live without it.