Media BuyingAll accounts

Data as of Aug 19, 8:30 PM

Aug 18 – Aug 18, 2026vsAug 17 – Aug 17, 2026

Alerts5

Criticalbuyer_zero_return

Datalot received 426 posted leads this week and returned no sales. Verify whether these genuinely did not sell or whether the sales are not being attributed back through Everflow adv1 -- the two look identical here.

Criticalzero_revenue_spend

Campaign 120250685280400286 spent $1,018.80 with no attributed revenue and no resolving clicks at all -- check the tracking template before pausing, since untracked traffic looks identical to dead traffic.

Data checkclaude_daily_briefing

Start with the tracking question, because three of today's biggest findings could all be the same bug. Campaign 120250685280400286 spent $1,018.80 in the window with zero attributed revenue and zero resolving clicks — not low clicks, none at all, which is the signature of a broken tracking template rather than dead traffic. Campaign 120251020874670286 shows the same pattern at $189.36. Do not pause either until someone loads the click URL and confirms the redirect resolves and the sub-IDs are populating; if clicks are firing and simply not converting, then pausing is correct and cheap to do tomorrow. Same ambiguity on the buyer side: Datalot took 426 posted leads and returned no sales, DMS 123, Rocket Quote 70. Zero sales on 426 leads from an established buyer is more likely an attribution break in the Everflow adv1 postback than genuine total rejection — pull the buyer's own portal or a delivery report for the week and compare their sold count to ours. If their numbers match ours at zero, it's a lead-quality or filter problem with those buyers; if they don't, revenue is being under-reported and every ROAS figure on this page is understated. What's working: New Account is running 0.51x on $4,655.56 against Old Account's 0.23x on $5,430.98, and Old Account is carrying 54% of spend. That's the clearest available reallocation, but the same caveat applies — confirm Old Account's tracking is intact before concluding the traffic is worse, since the two zero-revenue campaigns above may sit inside it and be dragging that ratio down. Arity grew to $528.09 from $9.50 last week; find out what changed there, because it is the most credible path away from single-buyer dependence. And the 45-54 age bracket is returning $7.26 per lead against $5.57 overall, selling at 20.9% versus 14.7% across 110 leads — worth weighting targeting toward it. The concentration risk is real and worth acting on regardless of how the tracking questions resolve: QuoteWizard is 67.7% of revenue at $2,650.62. With Datalot, DMS and Rocket Quote all returning nothing, the buyer base is effectively one buyer right now. Getting those three verified and, if needed, repaired is the same work as fixing the concentration. Spend rose well above the prior week while revenue moved much less, and ROAS fell from 0.48 to 0.362. Some of that gap is plausibly the unattributed revenue described above rather than real deterioration — which is exactly why the tracking and postback checks come before any budget decision today.

Warningbuyer_zero_return

DMS received 123 posted leads this week and returned no sales. Verify whether these genuinely did not sell or whether the sales are not being attributed back through Everflow adv1 -- the two look identical here.

Warningbuyer_zero_return

Rocket Quote received 70 posted leads this week and returned no sales. Verify whether these genuinely did not sell or whether the sales are not being attributed back through Everflow adv1 -- the two look identical here.

Revenue

Total revenue

$1,258.67

↑118.1%vs prior 1d

Lead sale revenue

$141.13

↑109.0%vs prior 1d

Click feed revenue

$1,117.54

↑119.3%vs prior 1d

Call revenue

$0.00

Not yet reconciled — Ringba revenue exists but has no call_payout events.

Spend

$2,734.75

↑44.5%vs prior 1d

Funnel

Clicks

1,143

↑110.9%vs prior 1d

Leads

211

↑111.0%vs prior 1d

Conversion rate

18.5%

no changevs prior 1d

Leads sold

↑162.5%vs prior 1d

Sold rate

19.9%

↑24.4%vs prior 1d

Efficiency

CPL

$12.96

↓31.5%vs prior 1d

Avg RPL

$3.36

↓20.4%vs prior 1d

Avg click feed rev

$6.07

↑1.3%vs prior 1d

Blended ROAS

0.46×

↑51.0%vs prior 1d

Margin

-$1,476

↓12.2%vs prior 1d

CurrentPrior period

Campaigns

Account / Campaign / Ad	Spend	Clicks	Leads	Sold	CPL	RPL	Revenue	ROAS
	$1,801.12	573	162	36	$11.12	$3.39	$1,000.05	0.56×
	$936.16	142	42	6	$22.29	$3.20	$214.25	0.23×

Accounts, campaigns and ads with no activity in the period are omitted entirely. Totals here are lower than the cards above: only clicks that resolve to an ad can be attributed to a campaign.

Click feeds

Avg bid	Bids	Clicks	Revenue	RPU
$2.73 ↑3.8%	1,109 ↑82.4%	136 ↑97.1%	$794.49 ↑115.1%	$5.84 ↑9.1%
$2.33 ↑11.9%	813 ↑90.8%	30 ↑130.8%	$185.56 ↑106.5%	$6.19 ↓10.5%
$3.31 ↓1.9%	596 ↑96.1%	23 ↑155.6%	$104.73 ↑171.5%	$4.55 ↑6.2%
$2.56 ↑0.6%	791 ↑59.5%	7 ↑250.0%	$32.76 ↑180.3%	$4.68 ↓19.9%

Each figure shows its change against the same figure last period, so a feed paying less per click reads differently from one being sent fewer clicks — revenue alone moves the same either way. Avg bid averages every bid into the feed, winning or not: market context, not earnings. RPU is what a click actually paid. Expanding shows only what traces back to an ad, so those rows sum to less than the feed itself — and less again for bids than revenue, since only about half of bids carry a resolvable identity. A blank change means no activity at all last period, which is not the same as a fall from zero.

Lead buyers

Avg bid	Bids	Sent	Sold	Accept	Revenue	RPU
$3.48 ↑14.2%	261 ↑57.2%	84 ↑68.0%	13 ↑116.7%	15.5% ↑29.0%	$79.41 ↑67.7%	$6.11 ↓22.6%
$3.58 ↑13.2%	261 ↑57.2%	144 ↑132.3%	11 ↑266.7%	7.6% ↑57.9%	$37.66 ↑390.4%	$3.42 ↑33.7%
$1.00 no change	261 ↑57.2%	98 ↑66.1%	10 ↑400.0%	10.2% ↑201.0%	$10.00 ↑400.0%	$1.00 no change
$1.48 ↑23.7%	240 ↑48.1%	39 ↑62.5%	3 ↑200.0%	7.7% ↑84.6%	$6.73 ↑234.8%	$2.24 ↑11.6%
$0.70 ↑8.0%	261 ↑57.2%	42 ↑110.0%	4 ↑100.0%	9.5% ↓4.8%	$5.71 ↑111.5%	$1.43 ↑5.7%
$0.30 ↑12.7%	245 ↑47.6%	28 ↑64.7%	1 —	3.6% —	$1.62 —	$1.62 —
$0.97 ↓7.4%	261 ↑57.2%	85 ↑46.6%	0 —	0.0% —	$0.00 —	— —
$0.00 —	248 ↑51.2%	36 ↑140.0%	0 —	0.0% —	$0.00 —	— —
$1.75 ↑28.3%	261 ↑57.2%	25 ↑212.5%	0 —	0.0% —	$0.00 —	— —
— —	245 ↑65.5%	6 ↓25.0%	0 ↓100.0%	0.0% ↓100.0%	$0.00 ↓100.0%	— —
— —	250 ↑54.3%	1 —	0 —	0.0% —	$0.00 —	— —
— —	261 ↑57.2%	— —	0 —	— —	$0.00 —	— —
$2.17 ↑57.9%	245 ↑54.1%	— —	0 —	— —	$0.00 —	— —

Each figure shows its change against the same figure last period, so a buyer paying less per lead reads differently from one accepting fewer. Accept is sold ÷ sent, this buyer’s own acceptance rate — not the dashboard’s sold rate, which spans every buyer. RPU is revenue per lead sold, so price and acceptance stay separable. A row with bids but no sends is a buyer in the auction receiving nothing. Expanded rows cover only what traces back to an ad — about half of pings and sends carry a resolvable identity — so the rates there read higher than the buyer’s own row: traffic that resolves is traffic that tracks, and it converts better.

Demographics

Military / Campaign / Ad	Avg bid	Bids	Leads	Sold	Sold rate	Avg sold	Revenue
	$1.37	1,804	150	29	19.3%	$3.09	$89.51
	$1.39	715	61	13	21.3%	$3.97	$51.62

Leads are counted in the window they arrived, and a sale counts toward them whenever it lands — so a demographic is judged on the leads it produced, not on the day money happened to arrive. Recent windows therefore understate sold rate. Sold rate is coloured against this scope’s 19.9% baseline, and only once a row has at least 40 leads — below that a rate is chance, not a finding. Avg sold is confirmed revenue per lead sold, not the price field on the lead row. Expanding shows only leads that trace back to an ad, so campaigns sum to less than the row above them.