Cause → Solution Map

⚠ Marketing costs +35%  |  New customers decreasing
💸 Budget Allocation
Cause
Agency and production fees rose, leaving less budget for actual media spend
Solution
Audit fee structure; cap non-media costs; set a firm % threshold — e.g. min. 70% of budget must go to media
🌍 Market & Competition
Cause
Core audience is saturated — most reachable prospects have already been converted
Solution
Build lookalike audiences from best customers; test underserved segments across all three Baltic markets
🎨 Campaign Effectiveness
Cause
Landing page conversion rate dropped — traffic arrives but prospects don't complete the application
Solution
Run CRO audit on all landing pages; A/B test key steps; reduce friction to first product activation
📊 Attribution & Measurement
Cause
Consent and cookie changes mean a growing share of real conversions go untracked
Solution
Implement server-side tracking and modeled conversions; validate against CRM actuals monthly
🏦 Product & Offer
Cause
Product offer has become less competitive — rates or incentives no longer compelling vs. rivals
Solution
Run competitive benchmarking across Baltic markets; brief product team before the next campaign cycle

Justification for the Selected Solutions

Scored across 5 criteria  ·  🟢 Low   🟡 Medium   🔴 High

Objective
Budget:
Cap non-media fees
Market:
Expand to new audiences
Campaign:
CRO audit & fix funnel
Attribution:
Server-side tracking
Product:
Competitive benchmarking
Implementation
period
🟢 Low🟡 Medium🟡 Medium🔴 High🟢 Low
Development
costs
🟢 Low🟢 Low🟡 Medium🔴 High🟢 Low
Maintenance
costs
🟢 Low🟢 Low🟢 Low🟡 Medium🟢 Low
Expected
revenue impact
🟡 Medium🔴 High🔴 High🟡 Medium🔴 High
Expected
benefits
🟡 Medium🔴 High🔴 High🟡 Medium🔴 High
Implementation
risks
🟢 Low🟡 Medium🟢 Low🔴 High🟡 Medium
Quick win. Immediate cost efficiency with minimal effort.Requires audience research and testing cycles across 3 markets.Fast impact. Traffic is already paid for — fix the funnel.Heaviest lift — needs dev, legal and analytics alignment.Fast to start, but outcome depends on product team velocity.

Impact vs. Effort Matrix

Where each solution sits — and what to do first

↑ High impactLow effort  →  High effort
Impact
Quick Wins
Do first
1 Cap non-media fees2 CRO funnel fix
Major Projects
Plan & schedule
3 Expand to new audiences4 Competitive benchmarking
Fill Ins
Do when capacity allows
No solutions in this zone
Hard Slogs
Reconsider or deprioritise
5 Server-side tracking
Effort
Placement rationale

#1 Cap non-media fees — days to implement, immediate cost recovery. High impact, low effort.

#2 CRO funnel fix — traffic already paid for; fixing conversion multiplies results fast. High impact, low–medium effort.

#3 New audience expansion — high revenue upside but needs research, testing, and 3-market rollout. High impact, high effort.

#4 Competitive benchmarking — critical for offer relevance but depends on product team; medium effort, high strategic impact.

#5 Server-side tracking — important long-term but requires dev, legal & analytics alignment. Medium impact on new customers directly; very high effort.

Project Brief — Quick Wins
Quick Win #1
Quick Win #2
Cap Non-Media Fees
CRO Funnel Fix
Project products
Required competencies for product development
Marketing ops, Finance, Procurement. Agency contract review skills.
Digital marketing, UX/CRO, Analytics. Product & web dev support.
Product quality criteria
Complete when: fee audit is done, revised cost split (min. 70% to media) is agreed in writing, and confirmed with agency and finance sign-off.
Complete when: full funnel audit is documented, at least 2 A/B tests are live, and conversion rate improvement is measurable vs. baseline.
Product quality acceptance methods and responsible persons
Invoice audit, cost breakdown review, contract amendment. Responsible: Marketing Lead + Finance.
Analytics review, CVR before/after comparison, UX test results. Responsible: Performance Marketing + Web team.
Product-Based Planning
Product Breakdown Structure & Product Descriptions for our two Quick Win solutions
Reduce marketing cost inefficiency & increase new customer acquisition
P1: Cap Non-Media Fees
P1_1: Agency fee audit report
P1_2: Cost split benchmark (70/30 rule)
P1_3: Revised contract / amendment
P1_4: Finance sign-off document
P1_5: Monthly cost monitoring report
P2: CRO Funnel Fix
P2_1: Full funnel audit report
P2_2: Landing page CRO test plan
P2_3: A/B test results (min. 2 tests)
P2_4: Updated landing pages
P2_5: CVR baseline vs. improved report
Product Descriptions
P1 — Cap Non-Media Fees
Product No.
P1
Title
Agency & Production Fee Cap
Purpose
Ensure a minimum of 70% of marketing budget reaches actual media, reducing cost leakage to fees
Scope
Fee audit, cost split renegotiation, revised contract, finance approval, ongoing monitoring
Conditions
Requires access to current agency invoices and contracts; finance team availability
Required competencies
Marketing ops, Procurement, Finance, Contract management
Quality criteria
Fee audit completed; revised cost split agreed in writing; confirmed by agency and finance
Methods for quality review
Invoice audit, cost breakdown review, contract amendment sign-off
Persons responsible
Marketing Lead, Finance Manager
P2 — CRO Funnel Fix
Product No.
P2
Title
Conversion Rate Optimisation — Full Funnel
Purpose
Convert existing paid traffic more effectively by identifying and fixing drop-off points in the acquisition funnel
Scope
Funnel audit, landing page CRO, A/B testing, onboarding friction reduction, CVR reporting
Conditions
Analytics access required; web dev and UX resource availability; baseline CVR data must exist
Required competencies
Performance marketing, UX/CRO, Web development, Analytics
Quality criteria
Funnel audit documented; min. 2 A/B tests live; measurable CVR improvement vs. baseline
Methods for quality review
Analytics review, A/B test results, CVR before/after comparison
Persons responsible
Performance Marketing Manager, Web Team Lead
Product Flow Diagram
Sequence of deliverables from project initiation to outcome
Project Initiation Decision
Prerequisite:
Data & Analytics Baseline
P1: Cap Non-Media Fees
P2: CRO Funnel Fix
P1: Cap Non-Media Fees
P1_1: Agency fee audit report
P1_2: Cost split benchmark
P1_3: Revised contract
P1_4: Finance sign-off
P1_5: Monthly cost report
P2: CRO Funnel Fix
P2_1: Funnel audit report
P2_2: CRO test plan
P2_3: A/B test results
P2_4: Updated landing pages
P2_5: CVR improvement report
Reduced cost per new customer acquired
→ DependencyP2 (CRO Funnel Fix) depends on the analytics baseline being in place before testing begins. P1_4 (Finance sign-off) must be completed before new agency contracts are activated. Both P1 and P2 can run in parallel once the baseline is confirmed.
Development of Project Plan
Q3 2026
Q4 2026
Q1 2027
Q2 2027
Project initiation
Project initiation
Project Initiation
Decision
Analytics baseline setup
Baseline setup
Baseline
Confirmed
P1: Cap Non-Media Fees development
P1 development
Fee cap
agreed & signed
P2: CRO Funnel Fix development
P2 development
A/B tests live,
CVR improving
Integration of project products
Integration
Reduced cost per
new customer
Product review and closure
Review & closure
Development of the Stage Plan
Product: Server-Side Tracking Implementation  ·  Start: 2 September 2026  ·  Latvia
Outsource — Roberts (SST specialist)
In-house — Raivo / Ieva / Inguna
⚡ Parallel — can run simultaneously
🚫 Holiday / reduced capacity
ProductActivityStart DateEnd DateTime
(hours)
Costs
(EUR)
Responsible
Person
🚫 NOTE: School year starts 1 Sep — reduced team availability first week. Stage 1 begins Wed 2 Sep with lighter tasks only.
STAGE 1 — Audit & Requirements  ·  2–19 Sep 2026
P5_1
Tracking audit
Map all existing tags, pixels, GA4 events across site. Deliverable: full audit document.02 Sep09 Sep16640Roberts
P5_2
Legal & consent review
Review GDPR & consent mode v2 requirements for Latvia. Runs parallel to audit.02 Sep12 Sep12300Inguna
P5_3
Analytics baseline snapshot
Export current CVR, traffic, conversion volumes as baseline reference. Parallel task.02 Sep05 Sep8200Ieva
P5_4
Technical requirements spec
Define SST architecture, data layer spec, tag manager config, cloud hosting choice.10 Sep19 Sep20800Roberts
STAGE 2 — Development & Setup  ·  22 Sep – 17 Oct 2026
P5_5
Server-side container setup
Configure GTM server container and cloud hosting (GCP/Azure). Core infrastructure.22 Sep03 Oct24960Roberts
P5_6
Data layer implementation
Web dev implements data layer events on site. Runs parallel to container setup.22 Sep10 Oct32800Raivo
P5_7
Consent mode v2 integration
Implement Google Consent Mode v2. Can begin parallel once container is provisioned.29 Sep10 Oct16640Roberts
P5_8
Meta CAPI & GA4 SST config
Route Meta Conversions API and GA4 events through server container.06 Oct17 Oct24960Roberts
STAGE 3 — Testing & QA  ·  20 Oct – 7 Nov 2026
P5_9
QA: event validation
Validate all events fire correctly; prevent duplicate conversions between browser & server.20 Oct31 Oct20800Roberts
P5_10
Internal UAT & reporting check
Business-side check: dashboards and campaign reports still accurate. Parallel to QA.27 Oct07 Nov12300Ieva
🚫 LV PUBLIC HOLIDAY: 18 Nov — Latvijas Neatkarības proklamēšanas diena. No work. Buffer built into Stage 4 start.
STAGE 4 — Go-Live & Monitoring  ·  10 Nov – 5 Dec 2026
P5_11
Production go-live
Switch server-side tracking live in production. Monitor closely for first 48 hours.10 Nov14 Nov8320Roberts
P5_12
Post-launch monitoring
Monitor data quality, conversion volumes, anomaly alerts daily. 2-week window.17 Nov28 Nov16500Raivo + Ieva
P5_13
Stakeholder report & handover
Prepare sign-off report: before/after data, cost impact, recommendations. Parallel.24 Nov05 Dec10250Inguna
🚫 CHRISTMAS RISK: All deliverables must be signed off by 12 Dec to avoid year-end delays. Christmas period begins ~20 Dec.
TOTAL218 h€6,470Roberts: ~148h · In-house: ~70h
⚡ Parallel task logic:Legal & consent review (Inguna), analytics baseline snapshot (Ieva), data layer implementation (Raivo), internal UAT (Ieva), and stakeholder report (Inguna) all run concurrently with adjacent technical tasks — reducing total calendar time by ~3 weeks vs. sequential execution.
🚫 Latvia holidays considered: Reduced availability week of 1 Sep (school start) · 18 Nov Independence Day (public holiday, no work scheduled) · Christmas risk from 20 Dec — hard deadline of 12 Dec for all sign-offs. Roberts is the critical path resource — his availability as a busy specialist must be locked in before kick-off.
Hourly rate assumptions (Latvia market, 2026):
Roberts outsource SST specialist: €40/h  · Raivo in-house web dev: €25/h  · Ieva in-house analytics: €25/h  · Inguna in-house marketing/legal liaison: €25/h
Risk Assessment
Project: Server-Side Tracking Implementation  ·  Author: Inguna  ·  Date: Sep 2026
#AuthorDateCategoryDescriptionProbability
1 low – 4 high
Impact
1 low – 4 high
Risk
Exposure
P × I / EUR
Planned
Activity
Description of the planned activityStatusResponsible
Person
1Inguna02.09.26SuppliersRoberts (outsource specialist) is busy — unavailable or delayed at critical stages4 – High4 – High16 / €5,920PreventLock Roberts' availability and sign contract before project kick-off. Identify backup SST freelancer as contingency.OpenInguna
2Raivo02.09.26ProductData layer implementation delayed — website changes blocked by IT release schedule3 – Med-High3 – Med-High9 / €2,000ReduceAlign data layer tasks with IT release windows in advance. Add 1-week buffer in Stage 2 schedule.ActiveRaivo
3Inguna02.09.26EmployeesLegal sign-off delayed — GDPR / consent mode review takes longer than planned2 – Low-Med3 – Med-High6 / €450ReduceStart legal review in parallel on Day 1 (Sep 2). Involve legal team in kick-off meeting to pre-align on consent mode requirements.ActiveInguna
4Ieva02.09.26ProductServer-side data diverges significantly from client-side — QA reveals major discrepancies2 – Low-Med4 – High8 / €1,600ReduceEstablish analytics baseline snapshot before go-live. Run parallel tracking for 2 weeks post-launch before switching off client-side tags.OpenIeva
5Raivo02.09.26SuppliersCloud hosting costs (GCP/Azure) exceed budget estimate after go-live2 – Low-Med2 – Low-Med4 / €800AcceptMonthly cloud cost is low (<€150/mo est.). Monitor post-launch and adjust plan if costs exceed €300/mo. Acceptable risk given project ROI.AcceptedRaivo
6Inguna02.09.26EmployeesKey in-house team member unavailable due to holiday or illness during critical phase2 – Low-Med2 – Low-Med4 / €500ReduceMap all LV public holidays and school breaks into project plan. Cross-train Raivo and Ieva on each other's tasks where possible.ActiveInguna
7Ieva02.09.26ProductModelled conversions in Google Ads / Meta not accepted by platform — tracking gap remains1 – Low3 – Med-High3 / €600AcceptRisk is platform-dependent and partially outside project control. Monitor post-launch platform reporting; escalate to Roberts if model gaps exceed 15%.AcceptedIeva
Total estimated risk exposure (worst case)~€11,870Highest risks: Roberts availability (R1) · Data divergence post go-live (R4)
Risk exposure formula:  Risk exposure = Probability × Impact  ·  Risk exposure (EUR) = Probability% × Impact (EUR)
Planned activity scale: Prevent— eliminate the risk  · Reduce— lower probability or impact  · Accept — acknowledge and monitor