Verified outcomes.
Real numbers.

Most mid-market brands are unwilling to attach their name to public revenue numbers. We work under mutual NDA — sometimes mutual NDA on top of platform-specific clauses (Klaviyo, Stripe, Shopify Plus client data) — and case studies are written under those terms. Anonymising the brand name does not change whether the result happened, only whether we are contractually allowed to publish the name. Reference contacts (current or former clients willing to speak on the record) are returned within 48 working hours of brief acceptance under counter-NDA — those contacts are real and reachable.

Three layers. First, all result numbers are pulled from primary sources at the time of write-up — GA4, Shopify, Stripe, Klaviyo, Ads platform UIs, Triple Whale or Northbeam where deployed. Second, every published case study is internally reviewed against a baseline-vs-result methodology: we record the pre-engagement baseline (typically a 90-day trailing window) and the post-engagement measurement window with the same method. Third, attribution caveats are written into each case (last-touch / shared / MMM-overlay / incrementality-tested) so the reader can judge what the number means. We do not publish "uplift" numbers without specifying the comparison period or attribution model.

Every case study includes: (1) the baseline metric and measurement window before engagement; (2) the result metric and measurement window after engagement; (3) the channels and tactics shipped, listed in execution order; (4) the attribution method used (last-touch, shared, MMM, incrementality-tested); (5) anonymised brand category + revenue tier so readers can judge category-fit. Cases that did not meet the baseline-vs-result evidence bar are not published — including some retainer engagements where the work delivered but the measurement was insufficient to attribute cleanly. The full editorial standards are at /about/editorial-standards/.

Each case study is dated by engagement window (start + completion) and we update the metric measurement when the post-engagement window extends. The default measurement window is 90 days post-launch for fast-cycle channels (paid social, email lifecycle, conversion-tracking rebuilds) and 180–365 days for slow-cycle channels (SEO recovery, AEO citation share, organic content). Cases published in 2024 are reviewed annually for stale outcomes — if a result has subsequently reverted (e.g., AEO citation share lost), we update the case to reflect that, not just the original lift.

Honest answer: depends on category fit, current baseline, and execution discipline. The published cases are evidence that the result has happened in similar mid-market brands; they are not a guarantee of replication. Our 7-day Free Growth Audit is the structured way to find out — it benchmarks your specific situation against category leaders + the relevant case studies, identifies the recoverable gap, and ranks Top-5 fixes by revenue impact. The audit is delivered free regardless of whether you go on to engage. Most case-study results required 4–9 months of execution; one-month "miracle" engagements are not in our portfolio.

Three of fourteen are fully written; the remaining eleven are stub entries — auto-generated from a brand category + metric + channel tuple — so cross-page links from services / verticals / countries do not 404 in the meantime. We are working through the stubs in priority order based on channel + category leverage. If you want detail on a specific stub case, reply via /contact/ with the slug and we will accelerate that write-up — or, more usefully, point you to a reference contact who can speak to the same engagement directly.