There are two different audiences with different concentrations in mind for a marketing report. Your team may want finer channel information and the person over budget wants to know if the money was well spent. Ignoring either leads to reports that are politely ignored.
Ours opens with money in and money out, then goes into channel detail for the people who run them. One document, two depths of reading.
Numbers from any marketing campaign are typically the most challenging to defend. That is because the platforms marketing campaigns are run on are inclined to assume as much claimed credit as possible for reported conversions, and even credit for views. A reputable report names the modeling behind all assertions and shows the assertion under a more stringent interpretation.
The marketing reports we generate use language purporting to be rigorous and evasive at the same time. Terms like “multi-touch consideration,” “channel synergy,” and “incremental lift” are a few examples. None of these types of frameworks describe the model used nor indicate what the number would be under a different model, and the first question finance asks is what this number is.
Whenever possible, the writer uses your exports instead of platform dashboards. Each dashboard wants to take credit for the same sale. Anything that only shows up in a certain platform’s reporting is labeled as such. The report shows roughly where the double counting is.
Unlike the others, this page shows what actually interests a finance team — spend, pipeline, and cost per acquisition numbers, as well as recommendations regarding where to allocate money for the following quarter. Each recommendation shows the number it is based on, so it can be debated rather than accepted as given.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical marketing report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
Primary sources wherever they exist — your own data, published research, filings, regulator and industry figures — with secondary reporting used only where nothing better is available. Everything used is listed with links so you can check it.
We write the analysis, label what each figure shows and describe the charts your designer should build, including the takeaway each one has to land. We do not produce finished graphics, so tell us if you need the underlying numbers laid out for a designer.
Agencies are a large share of this work. Please provide the client’s sector, and also be sure to provide the preferred tone and omit our agency’s name. Upon delivery of the copyright transfer, you may present the document without attribution as your work.
The report summarizes what went wrong and the associated costs, but more importantly how the evidence supports the claim. Clients understand and are more likely to forgive an honest explanation of a failed test than one that is reframed and explained afterward. That said, reframing is only a Band-Aid solution at best.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We anticipated the typical one-sided whitepaper on heat pump retrofits, but this one actually named the two building types for which the economics do not work. Sales Initially pushed back against this whitepaper, but it is now the asset type that converts best because engineers trust it.
The narrative was strong, and the board approved of it without any changes or comments. Two chart captions had the wrong year, and while I can say I caught it, I shouldn’t have to. They fixed it within an hour of me pointing it out. The rest of the report was in good order.
We submitted our paper and a spreadsheet. Our writer said our sample size was too small. We modified the claim. It’s a slightly bruised ego, but better paper and nobody has criticized it in public yet.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees