Revenue Analysis

CLIENT LOGO
A comprehensive view of current marketing efforts,

sales results, and opportunities for future growth
CLIENT Revenue
Review
Spring 2013
Margaret Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
CLIENT Revenue Review 2013
Contents
Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3
Snapshot of Now ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Revenue .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Traffic .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Top 3 Sources Organic, Direct, and PPC ....................................................................................................................... 5
Email................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Affiliates PepperJam .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Social Programs ............................................................................................................................................................. 10
Smartphone Traffic ....................................................................................................................................................... 10
Optimal Target Segments ..................................................................................................................................................... 11
Product Targets ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Product Categories ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
Product Names.............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Location Targets ................................................................................................................................................................ 12
Day Parting/Device Targets............................................................................................................................................... 13
Quick Win Opportunities ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Organic - SEO..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
PPC ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Remarketing ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Review ................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix ............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Analysis Data Sets ............................................................................................................................................................. 18
SEOmoz Screenshots ......................................................................................................................................................... 31
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Overview
Over the past four years, consumer behaviors have changed as rapidly as technology. Mobile internet devices have
become a regular part of consumer media consumption, with 47% of interactions now occurring on a smartphone or
tablet and 90% of consumers using multiple devices to reach their goals1. This integration of mobile devices into a
shoppers experience online poses several challenges for online retailers.
In this changing landscape, traffic to CLIENT has decreased substantially, now down 21% over last year. The current
strategy depends heavily on existing online brand awareness, and this segment has declined over time resulting in a loss
in traffic across all 3 primary sources - direct, organic search, and paid search. The decreases in revenue2 are directly
related to the decreases in traffic to the site.
Traditional online marketing tactics, such as search engine optimization and targeted pay per click campaigns, can
improve traffic volume and revenue through expanding CLIENTs online brand presence. Insights derived from current
customer behaviors and online search patterns can provide manageable targets for these methods, and strategies to
improve onsite conversions and customer retention will support the traffic initiatives to attract new customers.
1
2
(Google/Ipsos/Sterling, 2012)
Figure 1: Total CLIENT.com Revenue February through March, 2010 2013
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Methodology
The focus of this analysis is to provide data driven insights into the difference in revenue between 2012 and 2013 for the
beginning of the spring season. This shift typically occurs between weeks 9 and 12, although a longer time period
beginning with the first week of February was used to provide an accurate view of the weeks leading up to the spring
spike.
The data used in this study comes from the CLIENT sales database, Google Analytics, Google Adwords, Exact Target, and
ClearSaleing. Revenue information relative to traffic, campaigns, and AdGroups was derived from ClearSaleing when
possible, due to its division of revenue between all contributing click paths. Google Analytics main reporting attributes
traffic sources by last click and was used only for trending purposes. Multi-Channel conversion views from Google
Analytics were also used to supplement revenue data unavailable from ClearSaleing, and for visibility into the overlap of
different traffic sources.
Customers determined to be resellers were defined through individual review of the orders from customers with more
than 9 orders in all of 2012 or 3 orders in 2013. Determination was made based on extreme order volume, or shipping
identical items to multiple zip codes. Every effort was made to only include obvious resellers in this customer segment,
therefore not all resellers have been accurately identified. The analysis regarding reseller impact on revenue safely
underestimates the actual revenue from the complete reseller segment.
Data sets relevant to this study can be found in the Appendix.
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Snapshot of Now
Revenue
The successful launch of the PRODUCT and the order volume of resellers
are currently contributing 34% of our revenue. Without these two
revenue segments, CLIENT is experiencing a 44% decrease over last years
revenue3 during the beginning of the spring season - typically our second
highest volume time of year.
In-depth analysis of CLIENT orders revealed the issue is not product based,
but customer based. The mix of products sold to non-reseller customers
has no shifts in price point, product category, or product preference
significant enough to account for the substantial decrease in revenue4.
12% of our sales are coming from a

group of 22 resellers less than 1% of
CLIENT customers.
Although resellers provide a nice boost

in sales, they cannot be depended on
for revenue in a long term plan.
Instead, the cause of sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of

customers - from over 7K customers last year to just over 3K in 2013, a loss of 54% in one year. This decrease in
customers appears to be directly linked to the decreases in traffic to CLIENT.com.
Product Revenue
Volume of Products Sold
Number of Orders
Non-Reseller Customers
2012
1,322,850
9171
7590
7346
2013
509,472
4279
3464
3376
Difference
-61%
-53%
-54%
-54%
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data, Filter: Non-Reseller Purchases, Weeks 6 12)
Between weeks 9 and 11, we typically see the upswing in revenue for spring. While we did have a significant increase in
sales in week 12, the majority of the increase was artificial due to a sudden increase in reseller orders5. Orders by typical
customers are still far behind last years numbers.
Although the primary source of the revenue decrease is linked directly to a decrease in traffic, sales and promotions
during weeks 9 146 also supported the natural upswing in seasonal sales in previous years. Fewer email sends in 2013
resulted in a 36% decrease in revenue from emails7. However, email promotions in previous years have only
contributed 5% of overall revenue.
Figure 2: CLIENT.com Revenue without PRODUCT GROUP items or Reseller Sales

Figure 4: CLIENT.com Revenue by Category without Reseller Sales
Figure 5: Top 30 Products Purchased (Volume) in 2012 and their 2013 Performance
5
Figure 3: Reseller Contribution to CLIENT.com Revenue
6
Figure 18: CLIENT.com Spring Promotions, February to March, 2010 2013
7
Figure 17: Twice Monthly Email Performance, 2012 2013
4
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Traffic
Overall traffic coming to the site is down 21% over last year. The true decrease is difficult to pinpoint due to the
increase in multi-platform consumption. Overall mobile web traffic in the United States last year rose 87%8, and at least
60% of online users now begin their shopping on one device and complete their purchase on another9. This prevents
Google Analytics from providing a relevant overall traffic data. Since PC visits still account for 78% of CLIENT
conversions10, examining the traffic shifts within this segment provides visibility into source and brand performance.
Top 3 Sources Organic, Direct, and PPC
120000
100000
2012
2013
80000
60000
27%
40000
30%
20000
54%
0
Organic
Direct
PPC
Referral Affiliate
Email Products Other
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 11, PC visits only)
The top 3 traffic sources for CLIENT.com Organic, Direct, and PPC are currently focused on capturing brand aware
customers. Branded keywords account for 96% of all organic search traffic11, direct traffic occurs when a customer came
through a bookmark to a site page or typed the website directly into the browser, and currently the only ads running for
PPC are the branded campaigns. This decrease across all three sources suggests an overall decrease in brand awareness
online.
The clearest view of online search behaviors comes from our branded pay-per-click Google AdWords campaigns. Since
we have maintained top positions for branded product ads, their impressions reflect the total number of searches
occurring online. Since last year, there has been a 44% decrease in branded search term impressions12 across these
8
(ComScore, Brave New Digital World, 2012), (ComScore, 2012 Mobile Future In Focus, 2012)
10
Figure 7: CLIENT.com Revenue by Device
11
Figure 9: Organic Google Search Keyword Groups
12
Figure 10: CLIENT Branded Keyword Impressions
9
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
campaigns, indicating that online brand presence is shrinking and it is time to pursue online support to attract new
customers.
Search Keywords
Organic and paid search traffic is dependent upon the keyword entered into the search engine. Both provide valuable
information regarding the search habits of consumers, and directional information regarding the state of the brands
online presence.
Since 2012, search impressions for 4 of the top 8 product categories have fallen by 74% or more13: CATEGORY,
CATEGORY, CATEGORY, and CATEGORY. Another key category, CATEGORY, has also been impacted by decreased
branded search. Overall impressions for this category have decreased 45% since last year, with a 30% decrease in
organic search visits.
Excepting CATEGORY, these four categories accounted for 39% of the revenue from non-resellers in 201214. Currently
these categories are also contributing 40% of the overall decrease in revenue15. CATEGORY sales have remained steady
despite the decrease in searches, likely due to poor conversion last year.
Although part of the decline may be due to difficulty competing with retailers for pricing, it is important to optimize our
current presence in the online space for these key categories, and attract new customers with a new brand awareness
strategy.
Organic
It is important to be aware that in 2010, organic keywords for users logged into Google or Gmail became encrypted,
preventing the users search terms from being captured by Google Analytics16. Since 2011, many websites saw a 50
60% increase in (not provided) keywords while their brand terms took a 35% to 45% decrease in traffic17. We saw
similar results, disabling the analysis of overall keyword search volume as an explanation for the decrease in organic
traffic. Instead, the available information regarding keywords can only be used for trending.
PPC
PPC traffic saw 14% higher decreases in traffic than the Organic and Direct, which is directly related to the termination
of the non-brand keyword targeted text ads. At this point in the spring season last year, 13% of clicks and 46% of
impressions were directly attributable to Non-Brand campaigns18. While these campaigns only achieved a 127% ROI,
90% of the attributed conversions had a first click interaction with CLIENT.com resulting from the Non-Brand text
campaign19.
Although the precise long term impact of terminating the non-brand text ads is unknown, these were the only online
initiative to increase brand awareness and attract new customers to CLIENT.com.
13
Figure 12: Number of Branded Paid Search Keyword Impressions by Product Category
Figure 13: CLIENT.com Revenue by Product Sub Category, 2012 2013
15
16
(Google, 2010)
17
(SEOmoz, 2011)
18
Figure 14: Non-Brand Google AdWords Text Ad Campaigns 2012
19
14
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Direct
This segments intent is captured not by keyword, but by landing page. The top 3 pages that capture over 70% of our
direct traffic20 are the home page, individual product pages and the PRODUCT CATEGORY page. However the
distribution has changed substantially since last year:
100%
80%
Play Kitchens
60%
Product Pages
40%
Home Page
20%
0%
2012
2013
This shift in PRODUCT CATEGORY is mirrored by a decrease in branded CATEGORY traffic from organic keywords. Both
indicate that previous interest in BRAND kitchens has declined, and reinvestment in online market positioning will be
required to accelerate sales for this product group.
Abandon rates also increased over last year by 15% for direct visitors landing on the home page. This shift is misleading
and is potentially due to bot traffic to CLIENT.com between January 30th and February 20th 2013. These visitors using
Firefox 8.0 as their browser were reporting 99.3% bounce rates and a peculiar spike in traffic during this time period.
(Source: Google Analytics)
20
Figure 15: Landing Page Visits for Direct Traffic to CLIENT.com, 2012 2013
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Email
Transactional Emails
In mid-2012, abandoned cart emails were implemented to improve conversion. Between weeks 6 and 11 in 2013, there
have been no conversions recorded by either Google Analytics or ClearSaleing that are attributable to this initiative.
While this type of email is a best practice for ecommerce retailers, the initiative requires optimization to achieve the
conversion goal.
Birthday Club
The Birthday Club email program was refreshed in August 2011, providing a coupon code to enrolled customers for the
month of their childs birthday. To increase the subscriber base, the club has been featured on the carton stuffer
booklet each year and the link to join online has been featured on the CLIENT.com home page.
Program performance has improved considerably since last year. Email sends are up 33% with only a slight decrease in
open rate, indicating that the recipients are interested in the content21. In addition, the click conversion rate has
skyrocketed, from under 1% in 2012 to almost 5% in 201322. Current testing of different discounts and messages are
achieving positive results and optimization should be continued to increase the revenue contribution of these emails.
Twice Monthly Emails
This program is long standing, although a change to C-TRAC as the provider of ExactTarget services in March 2011
prevents over time performance analysis of emails prior to the change.
In 2013, new email signups are being pursued through social initiatives. Unfortunately, it appears that the quality of the
new signups is not resulting in increased revenue, only increased spend. Compared to last year, the subscriber count
has increased by 50%, resulting in only 10% fewer sends over 2012 despite cutting the email campaign count by 40%23.
The revenue results have matched the decrease in email campaigns, with 36% fewer sales and 68% fewer orders than
last year24. The increase in email subscribers has not contributed higher revenues, indicating that the new subscribers
being captured are not engaged enough with our product mix or our brand to result in sales conversions.
21
Figure 16: Birthday Club Email Performance, 2012 2013

23
24
22
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Affiliates PepperJam
Multi-Channel Conversion Paths
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2013)
In 2012, we initiated a relationship with PepperJam to run CLIENTs affiliate network. Although it is difficult to pinpoint
the exact impact on multi-channel conversions over time, the affiliate source now contributes to 30% of online
transactions, with 57.7% of Affiliate conversion paths overlapping with another medium.
The largest overlap is with the Direct source, with 15% of all transactions visiting both sources25. This mirrors the
revenue decrease seen with Direct revenue which appears to have shifted directly to the Affiliate source.
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
2012
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
$190,884
2013
$229,093
(Source: Google Analytics Last Click Revenue Attribution, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2013)
25
Figure 21: Multi Channel Affiliate Conversion Paths by Source
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Social Programs
The primary goal of the social programs is to support brand awareness by maintaining brand visibility in our customers
social networks. Social networking can support traffic from all mediums, and a clearer impact of social on the brand
would come from a separate analysis. Here, traffic directly to CLIENT.com from social sites is reviewed to provide some
trend information about the development of the programs, but not their overall brand impact.
Currently, Facebook accounts for more than 80% of the social traffic sent to CLIENT.com. Since last year, there has been
a 28% decrease in traffic with a 36% decrease in page views26. Since the management of the programs content has
been relatively constant, the cause of the decrease is likely tied to a missing smartphone optimized version of the
website.
Smartphone Traffic
Since 2011, there has been a 30% increase in smartphone adoption27, however CLIENT.com smartphone traffic has
remained stagnant28. Without a mobile optimized site, we are unable to target this market and are missing traffic for
the 40% of online consumers that begin their shopping on a smartphone (Google/Ipsos/Sterling, 2012). This shift in
consumer device usage is partially responsible for the decreased traffic to CLIENT.com.
Social programs are also being affected, with 40% of cell phone owners accessing social networking sites from their
phones29. Although the social network is mobile optimized, click paths to CLIENT.com will be stunted due to difficult
visibility of the site on these small screens.
26
27
Facebook Visits to CLIENT.com, 2012 2013

(ComScore, 2013 Mobile Future in Focus, 2013)
28
Figure 6: Visits to CLIENT.com by Device for Weeks 6-11, 2012 2013
29
(Pew Research Center, 2013)
10
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Optimal Target Segments

Forging a new path for CLIENT.com to attract and retain new customers in the online space depends on capitalizing on
our current product strengths and utilizing the directional data that has been accumulated about visitor behaviors,
conversion paths, and customer transactions. Targeting these market segments throughout all online marketing efforts
will maximize our success for desktop and tablet users in the short term.
Product Targets
Following are the product segments where CLIENT.com already has the strongest online visibility with brand terms.
These represent the categories that consumers most frequently identify with our brand, and our most recognized
products.
Maximizing the potential of these categories and products will rely heavily on CLIENT.com visibility on search engine
results pages for both brand and non-branded keywords. Supporting marketing initiatives will include SEO, PPC, CLIENT
Blog content, and potentially the In-house blogger program.
Product Categories
Below is the prioritized list of the 6 best recognized categories for BRAND products in the spring. (In midsummer,
evaluation of the same data sets should be performed to identify additional best recognized categories for the holiday
season.) By comparing online presence in past and changes in organic search visits30 and paid search impressions31, the
following categories have the greatest potential reach for improving our online brand awareness.
#1: PRODUCT CATEGORY
Product Names
Based on paid search impressions for text ads targeting by product name32, the following products should be a primary
focus for optimization this spring:
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
PRODUCT NAME
30
Figure 11: Top 100 Branded Organic Keywords by Visits and Product Category
32
Figure 23: Target Product Names from Paid Search Impressions, 2012 2013
31
11
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Location Targets
Certain areas of the country are providing greater amounts of traffic to CLIENT.com. However these are also the largest
metropolitan areas, so their volume is not necessarily an indication of brand loyalty.
To isolate brand awareness, the metropolitan population of the area was brought into the data set33, resulting in the
following list of top metropolitan areas for traffic per resident. This segment casts a smaller net than the highest traffic
volume areas, but should provide for a much higher campaign ROI due to higher existing brand awareness.
33
Metro
State
Visits
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
OH
16,437
Columbus
OH
6,593
Dayton
OH
1,243
Youngstown
OH
1,080
Toledo
OH
909
Philadelphia
PA
10,662
Pittsburgh
PA
5,970
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
PA
1,442
Johnstown-Altoona
PA
622
Washington DC/Hagerstown MD
DC
9,163
Boston MA-Manchester
MA
8,294
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville)
NC
2,909
Greenville-New Bern-Washington
NC
605
Nashville
TN
2,908
Portland
OR
2,486
Lansing
MI
2,473
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
NY
1,396
Rochester
NY
895
San Antonio
TX
2,131
Madison
WI
1,103
Green Bay-Appleton
WI
Charleston-Huntington
WV
Des Moines-Ames
IA
909
Rapid City
SD
900
Lexington
KY
827
Savannah
GA
698
Burlington VT-Plattsburgh
VT
652
932
1,297
Highest Brand Aware Metropolitan Areas Delivering Traffic to CLIENT.com
12
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Day Parting/Device Targets

As mobile device adoption increases, users have developed habits for web connected device type. These habits are
often reflected in the hours of the day and days of the week that visitors use the different devices. For example, tablet
use seems to peak between 8 and 10pm because consumer habits have evolved to use tablets primarily at home and
while watching TV34.
A review of the CLIENT.com search impressions from AdWords revealed the following patterns:
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Computer
Smartphone
Tablet
AM
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
PM
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(Source: Google AdWords, Filter: Weeks 6 11, 2013, top 40% of impressions)
This information provides context around how customers are using devices to engage with marketing efforts.
Considering these patterns with developing campaigns can improve engagement and provide greater returns.
34
13
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Quick Win Opportunities

Through utilizing our optimal targets for product type, location, device, and timing, we can develop some low cost, high
return initiatives to improve our traffic and revenue quickly at this critical point in the spring revenue increase, and
improve online brand awareness in the long term.
Improving traffic to CLIENT.com can be achieved quickly through paid methods, while developing an organic search
strategy will support the initiative long term. Using the product, location, time, and device targets will focus these
initiatives on reaching visitors most likely to convert.
Organic - SEO
To attract new visitors, maximizing CLIENT.com visibility on search engine results pages (SERP) will improve click through
to the site. Since the results are organic, they rely on improving page metadata and do not require any additional
marketing budget.
Focusing on the optimal product categories and product targets will provide the quickest return. A review of the SERP
for brand and non-branded keywords should be reviewed to determine opportunities for improvement. Maximizing the
CLIENT brand presence on these pages will include placement among images, videos, and also site pages.
Spotlight: SEOmoz
For this SEO initiative, SEOmoz will assist in managing and monitoring the performance of CLIENT.com across all three
major search engines Google, Yahoo, and Bing. At a low cost of $90/month, this program provides the directional
insights needed to maximize keyword relevancy across the site and monitor page crawl performance, and reporting for
success measurements. Integrating the use of this tool into all aspects of SEO will provide a stronger foundation for
CLIENT.com to compete for traffic in the online space.
A few key features of the program are:
1) Keyword Rankings Report35 and Keyword Difficulty Tool36 Weekly monitoring of brand and non-brand
keywords provides actionable data regarding CLIENT.com page relevancy. When attempting to improve
performance, the keyword difficulty tool will provide insight into the level of online competition for the
keyword.
2) Organic Search Data Import37 Through access to the Google Analytics account, SEOmoz is able to segment
brand and non-brand keywords to provide over time views of CLIENT.com search visits.
3) On Page Optimization Report38 Through uploading the primary short and long tail keywords (completed March
2013), SEOmoz monitors the relevancy of CLIENT.com pages for these search terms. This provides targeted
direction for improving page copy and metatags.
35
Figure 26: SEOmoz Keyword Rankings Report Example

Figure 27: SEOmoz Keyword Difficulty Report
37
Figure 28: SEOmoz Organic Traffic Data
38
Figure 29: SEOmoz On-Page Optimization Report
36
14
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
4) Link Building Tools The Competitive Link Comparison Report39 provides a view into the CLIENT.com link
building efforts against key competitors, such as COMPETITOR, COMPETITOR, and COMPETITOR. Additional
tools are available to target potential areas of improvement and provide insight to optimize the current blogger
and social media initiatives.
5) Crawl Diagnostics Report40 This report monitors CLIENT.com as interpreted by the search engines on a weekly
basis, identifying client errors, missing metadata, and duplicate page issues.
PPC
In addition to SEO, PPC campaigns and PLAs can capture additional real estate on the SERP. Through focusing on the
optimal target segments, non-brand campaigns can also be deployed with decreased spend and higher ROIs.
Display campaigns throughout the Google Display Network, including You Tube, can also provide repetitive visibility of
the brand to online consumers. Implementing the Google remarketing scripts on CLIENT.com can provide the additional
segmentation needed to filter these campaigns to primary product group targets.
Remarketing
Improving the amount of return customers also supports the marketing efforts to improve brand awareness in the
online space. In addition to the quarterly emails, there is an opportunity to cross sell prior purchasers of SECONDARY
BRAND products. By determining the approximate age of the child from the age range of the product purchased, these
customers can be retargeted just before the child turns 2, bringing the Infantino customer into the BRAND family.
39
Figure 30: SEOmoz Competitive Link Comparison

40
Figure 31: SEOmoz Crawl Diagnostics Summary
15
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Review
The decreases in revenue between 2012 and 2013 provide the alert that CLIENT.com is not generating brand awareness
with a new audience of online customers. The short age range of most BRAND products require new customers be
continuously introduced to the brand as children out grow our product line. Through implementing the quick win
suggested opportunities, new targeted traffic can be generated at a minimal cost to improve the revenue results for
spring and beyond.
With a focus on low budget options to improve revenue, two additional recommendations were omitted from the
opportunities the development of a mobile site and onsite conversion optimization. Both are important goals for the
next 18 months, but will require additional tech investment in coding, testing, and tracking tools. Once additional
revenue is being generated, perhaps the budget can be revised to include these projects.
16
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Appendix
FIGURE 1: TOTAL CLIENT.COM REVENUE FEBRUARY THROUGH MARCH, 2010 2013 ........................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 2: CLIENT.COM REVENUE WITHOUT CORVETTE ITEMS OR RESELLER SALES BY WEEK ...................................................................................... 18
FIGURE 3: RESELLER CONTRIBUTION TO CLIENT.COM REVENUE BY WEEK............................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 4: CLIENT.COM REVENUE BY CATEGORY WITHOUT RESELLER SALES ........................................................................................................... 19
FIGURE 5: TOP 30 PRODUCTS PURCHASED (VOLUME) IN 2012 AND THEIR 2013 PERFORMANCE ................................................................................ 20
FIGURE 6: VISITS TO CLIENT.COM BY DEVICE FOR WEEKS 6-11, 2012 2013 ...................................................................................................... 20
FIGURE 7: CLIENT.COM REVENUE BY DEVICE, 2013 .......................................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANIC SEARCH VISITS BY SEARCH ENGINE ............................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 9: ORGANIC GOOGLE SEARCH KEYWORD GROUPS .................................................................................................................................... 21
FIGURE 10: CLIENT KEYWORD IMPRESSIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 11: TOP 100 BRANDED ORGANIC KEYWORDS BY VISITS AND PRODUCT CATEGORY ........................................................................................ 22
FIGURE 12: NUMBER OF BRANDED PAID SEARCH KEYWORD IMPRESSIONS BY PRODUCT CATEGORY ............................................................................. 23
FIGURE 13: CLIENT.COM REVENUE BY PRODUCT SUB CATEGORY, 2012 2013 .................................................................................................... 24
FIGURE 14: NON-BRAND GOOGLE ADWORDS TEXT AD CAMPAIGNS 2012 ............................................................................................................. 25
FIGURE 15: LANDING PAGE VISITS FOR DIRECT TRAFFIC TO CLIENT.COM, 2012 2013 .......................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 16: BIRTHDAY CLUB EMAIL PERFORMANCE, 2012 2013........................................................................................................................ 25
FIGURE 17: TWICE MONTHLY EMAIL PERFORMANCE, 2012 2013...................................................................................................................... 25
FIGURE 18: CLIENT.COM SPRING PROMOTIONS, FEBRUARY TO MARCH, 2010 2013 ........................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 19: CLIENT.COM EMAILS BY TYPE, 2012 2013 ................................................................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 20: MULTI CHANNEL CONVERSION PATHS, 2013 .................................................................................................................................... 27
FIGURE 21: MULTI CHANNEL AFFILIATE CONVERSION PATHS BY SOURCE................................................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 22: FACEBOOK VISITS TO CLIENT.COM, 2012 2013 ............................................................................................................................ 27
FIGURE 23: TARGET PRODUCT NAMES FROM PAID SEARCH IMPRESSIONS, 2012 2013 .......................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 24: HIGHEST BRAND AWARE METROPOLITAN AREAS DELIVERING TRAFFIC TO CLIENT.COM ........................................................................... 29
FIGURE 25: TOP 40% OF SERP IMPRESSIONS BY HOUR OF DAY, DAY OF WEEK, AND DEVICE ..................................................................................... 30
FIGURE 26: SEOMOZ KEYWORD RANKINGS REPORT EXAMPLE .............................................................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 27: SEOMOZ KEYWORD DIFFICULTY REPORT .......................................................................................................................................... 32
FIGURE 28: SEOMOZ ORGANIC TRAFFIC DATA................................................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 29: SEOMOZ ON PAGE OPTIMIZATION REPORT ...................................................................................................................................... 33
FIGURE 30: SEOMOZ COMPETITIVE LINK COMPARISON ....................................................................................................................................... 34
FIGURE 31: SEOMOZ CRAWL DIAGNOSTICS SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 34
17
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Analysis Data Sets

Figure 1: Total CLIENT.com Revenue February through March, 2010 2013
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
2010
$150,000
2011
$100,000
2012
$50,000
2013
$0
6
9 10 11 12 13 14
Week
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data)
Figure 2: CLIENT.com Revenue without PRODUCT GROUP items or Reseller Sales by Week
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
2012
2013
$50,000
$0
10
11
12
13
14
2012 $96,037 $101,39 $106,68 $111,83 $143,33 $151,52 $191,60 $208,55 $211,56
2013 $58,359 $63,140 $59,462 $73,267 $69,434 $88,003
Week
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data, Filter: Non-Reseller Customer Purchases without PRODUCT GROUP items)
18
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 3: Reseller Contribution to CLIENT.com Revenue by Week
All Sales
$
Non-Reseller
$
Reseller
$
Reseller % of Total
6
86,290 $
83,232 $
3,059 $
4%
7
96,511 $
83,839 $
12,672 $
13%
8
103,530 $
86,667 $
16,864 $
16%
9
113,915 $
98,771 $
15,145 $
13%
10
105,850 $
93,025 $
12,825 $
12%
11
111,852 $
108,360 $
3,492 $
3%
12
148,154 $
123,130 $
25,024 $
17%
Total
766,103
677,023
89,080
12%
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data)
Figure 4: CLIENT.com Revenue by Category without Reseller Sales
Outdoor Play
Play Kitchens
Ride-Ons and Wagons
PRODUCT
Indoor Play
CATEGORIES
Sand & Water
Creative Play
Home & Garden
Kids Furniture
2012
$474,448
$135,357
$132,796
$28,795
$28,673
$22,615
$16,366
$58,426
2013 YoY Difference

$232,613
-51%
$79,776
-41%
$102,954
-22%
$16,644
-42%
$12,947
-55%
$7,528
-67%
$13,725
-16%
$204,428
71%
Of the top 30 products sold in 2012, the

PRODUCT is the only product with a volume
increase in 2013. The rest of the CATEGORY
category saw a YoY revenue decrease of 55%.
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data, Filter: Non-Reseller customers, weeks 6 - 12)
19
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 5: Top 30 Products Purchased (Volume) in 2012 and their 2013 Performance
Product Description
Versa Seat Wagon with Canopy
Extreme Coaster
LifeStyle Grand Walk-In Kitchen
KidAlert! V.W.S.
Complete Choo Choo Train Combo
Backyard Basics Combo
LifeStyle Dream Kitchen
Clubhouse Climber
Naturally Playful Picnic Table with Umbrella
New Traditions Table & Chairs Set
Naturally Playful Sand & Water Activity Center
LifeStyle Custom Kitchen
Naturally Playful Welcome Home Playhouse
Creative Projects Table
Push Around Buggy
LIST OF PRODUCTS
Umbrella 40 inch
Push Around Buggy 10th Anniversary Edition
Up & Down Roller Coaster
Play Food Assortment
New Traditions Chairs
Naturally Playful Playhouse Climber & Swing Extension
Naturally Playful Umbrella 60 inch
Whisper Ride Buggy
Adjustable Sand & Water Table
LifeStyle Dining Room and Pots & Pans Set
Complete Choo Choo Train Combo - USA Edition
Up & Down Elephant
Naturally Playful Lookout Treehouse
Outdoor Storage Bench
All-Star Sports Climber
Top 30 Products
All Products
YoY Volume Decrease

-60%
-53%
-79%
-64%
-48%
-77%
-74%
-64%
-76%
-42%
-74%
-72%
-58%
-100%
-76%
-69%
-82%
44%
-45%
-12%
-68%
-60%
-84%
-68%
-41%
-61%
-72%
-80%
-65%
-60%
YoY Revenue Difference

$
(12,610)
$
(37,123)
$
(46,202)
$
(4,857)
$
(13,726)
$
(64,814)
$
(17,676)
$
(64,161)
$
(10,755)
$
(3,587)
$
(7,408)
$
(8,534)
$
(40,498)
$
(12,561)
$
(4,005)
$
(1,175)
$
(3,879)
$
3,749
$
(1,211)
$
(434)
$
(37,405)
$
(1,221)
$
(5,139)
$
(4,464)
$
(616)
$
(7,355)
$
(1,714)
$
(9,129)
$
(6,726)
$
(4,940)
$
(430,176)
$
(645,827)
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data, Filters: Non-Reseller Customers, weeks 6 - 12)
Figure 6: Visits to CLIENT.com by Device for Weeks 6-11, 2012 2013
2012
2013
290294
193456
-33%
Smartphones Only
66203
68463
3%
Tablet Traffic
30002
42912
43%
Grand Total
386499
304831
-21%
Desktops
Difference
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 - 12)
20
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 7: CLIENT.com Revenue by Device, 2013
Revenue
% of Revenue
Desktops
489,312
78%
Smartphones Only
34,476
5%
Tablet Traffic
103,744
17%
Grand Total
627,533
100%
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6-11, 2013)
Figure 8: Distribution of Organic Search Visits by Search Engine
2012
2013
8.4%
9.4%
Google
11.4%
Yahoo
12.6%
Bing
72.4%
74.3%
Other
(Source: Google Analytics, weeks 6 11, 2012 - 2013)
Figure 9: Organic Google Search Keyword Groups
2012
2013
Difference
Brand Keywords
96.85%
96.28%
-1%
Brand Name
65.45%
62.51%
-4%
Product Category
20.38%
20.90%
3%
Product
8.68%
11.15%
28%
Canada
1.36%
1.17%
-14%
Corporate
0.98%
0.55%
-44%
Non-Brand Keywords
3.15%
3.72%
18%
Product Category
3.15%
3.72%
18%
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter; Weeks 6 11, 2012 - 2013)
21
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 10: CLIENT Branded Keyword Impressions
Average Ad Position
Branded Search Type
Number of Impressions
2012
2013
2012
2013
Difference
Brand Name
1.0
1.2
111694
82578
-26%
Product Category
1.8
1.6
358342
224880
-37%
Product Name
1.6
1.7
639934
316426
-51%
Grand Total
1.7
1.6
1109970
623884
-44%
(Source: Google AdWords, Filter: Weeks 6 12, Exact Match only for Brand Name searches)
Figure 11: Top 100 Branded Organic Keywords by Visits and Product Category
2012
2013
Difference
% of Visits - 2013
Play Kitchens
2258
1585
-30%
20.7%
Playhouses
2078
1054
-49%
13.8%
Toys
1870
992
-47%
13.0%
Wagons
950
389
-59%
5.1%
Swing Sets
896
503
-44%
6.6%
Beds
776
939
21%
12.3%
Push Cars
551
265
-52%
3.5%
Sand & Water
529
350
-34%
4.6%
439
249
-43%
3.3%
Slides
426
370
-13%
4.8%
Climbers
375
164
-56%
2.1%
Art Desks & Easels
302
293
-3%
3.8%
Playsets
178
133
-25%
1.7%
Mailboxes
149
180
21%
2.4%
Workbenches
103
52
-50%
0.7%
98
63
-36%
0.8%
76
N/A
1.0%
7657
-36%
PRODUCT
Toy Boxes
CATEGORIES
Tables & Chairs

Picnic Tables
Grand Total
11978
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 11, Top 100 Keywords by Visit)
22
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
2012
2013
Difference
% of Impressions - 2013
Play Kitchens
67363
36713
-45%
16.5%
Playhouses
47635
8416
-82%
3.8%
Mailboxes
36362
6052
-83%
2.7%
Toys
28916
24164
-16%
10.9%
Climbers
19845
3404
-83%
1.5%
Beds
16015
14104
-12%
6.3%
Wagons
15059
3905
-74%
1.8%
Sand & Water
14501
12771
-12%
5.7%
Roller Coasters
14243
12021
-16%
5.4%
11969
13251
11%
6.0%
Picnic Tables
8241
3484
-58%
1.6%
Push Cars
7123
57545
708%
25.9%
Art Desks & Easels
4993
11226
125%
5.0%
Riding Toy
4868
2558
-47%
1.1%
Slides
3788
2954
-22%
1.3%
Toy Boxes
3504
3820
9%
1.7%
Swing Sets
2222
948
-57%
0.4%
Playsets
2492
N/A
1.1%
Workbenches
2730
N/A
1.2%
306647
222558
PRODUCT
Tables & Chairs
CATEGORIES
Grand Total
-27%
(Source: Google AdWords, Filter: Weeks 6 12)
23
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
2012
2013
Difference
Value Combo
$202,580
$105,825
-$96,755
Climber
$128,051
$59,043
-$69,008
Kitchens
$120,799
$61,334
-$59,465
Swing Sets
$105,919
$47,711
-$58,207
Playhouses
$72,517
$47,309
-$25,208
Coaster
$53,524
$48,598
-$4,925
Wagons
$28,368
$18,932
-$9,437
Beds
$23,369
$45,068
$21,698
Ride-On Toys
$22,355
$14,736
-$7,619
Sand and Water Combo
$17,325
$6,293
-$11,032
Role Play
$16,852
$8,662
-$8,190
Art Desks
$16,498
$4,359
-$12,139
Picnic Tables
$12,686
$6,229
-$6,458
Table & Chairs
$10,987
$8,948
-$2,039
Mailboxes
$9,723
$9,043
-$680
Water Play
$8,377
$4,084
-$4,293
$7,402
$4,142
-$3,260
Slides
$5,779
$1,930
-$3,849
Playmats
$5,677
$2,570
-$3,107
Storage
$5,443
$3,939
-$1,504
Kids Safety
$4,596
$2,698
-$1,898
Step2 Family Brands
$4,052
$6,408
$2,356
Toy Boxes
$4,006
$9,377
$5,370
Art Easels
$3,466
$2,548
-$918
Sand Play
$2,970
$2,570
-$400
Sports
$2,569
$2,277
-$292
Train Tables
$2,054
$2,628
$574
Inflatables
$1,768
$855
-$914
Work Seats
$1,200
$744
-$456
PRODUCT
Kitchen Accessories
SUBCATEGORIES
North Coast Outdoor
$914
Easel & Desk Combos
$695
$620
-$75
Toy Figures & Playsets
$160
$160
$0
$50
$50
$509,472
-$393,212
Other
Grand Total
$902,684
-$914
(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Date, Filer: Non-Reseller customers, without PRODUCT GROUP Items, weeks 6 - 12)
24
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO

Campaign
Impressions
Outdoor Play
1691087
Playhouses
226338
Play Kitchens
96552
Wagons
19637
CAMPAIGN
Swing
Sets
19006
Climbers
9794
NAMES
Safety Signs
6026
Roller Coasters
1972
Picnic Tables
1956
Art Desks & Easels
84
Total Non-Brand
2072455
All Text Ads
4550446
% Due to Non-Brand
46%
Clicks
3077
3422
1219
1253
424
884
189
210
108
2
10788
81876
13%
CTR
0.18%
1.51%
1.26%
6.38%
2.23%
9.03%
3.14%
10.65%
5.52%
2.38%
0.52%
1.80%
29%
Cost
$ 1,283.93
$ 1,325.94
$ 620.48
$ 415.53
$ 831.96
$ 297.71
$
64.63
$
57.23
$
33.03
$
0.62
$ 4,931.06
$ 17,891.02
28%
Revenue
$ 2,451.94
$ 1,723.90
$ 3,828.79
$ 1,340.81
$
$ 1,218.40
$
251.91
$
361.98
$
$
$ 11,177.73
$ 181,339.46
6%
ROI Conversions Introducer %

91%
10
100%
30%
5
60%
517%
28
89%
223%
15
93%
-100%
0
0%
309%
7
86%
290%
6
100%
533%
2
100%
-100%
0
N/A
-100%
0
N/A
127%
73
90%
914%
1379
5%
Cost/Conversion
$
128.39
$
265.19
$
22.16
$
27.70
$
$
42.53
$
10.77
$
28.62
N/A
N/A
$
67.55
$
12.97
(Source: Google AdWords, Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2012, Non-Brand Text Campaigns)
Figure 15: Landing Page Visits for Direct Traffic to CLIENT.com, 2012 2013
Landing Page
2012
2013
Home Page
30300
40453
Product Pages
13600
19240
Play Kitchens Category Page
15600
1840
Top 3 Visits
59500
61533
Total Visits
80800
84600
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: weeks 6 11, all devices)

Birthday Club
2012
2013
Difference
# of Emails Sends/Email Sent Delivered Unique Opens Unique Clicks Open Rate
2
3255 6510
6465
1443
336
22.3%
2
4344.5 8689
8672
1737
346
20.0%
0%
33%
33%
34%
20%
3%
-10%
CTR
5.2%
4.0%
-23%
Orders
Click Conv Bounce Rate Total Sales Rev/Send

0.9%
0.7% $ 211.20 $
0.03
4.9%
0.2% $ 1,537.90 $
0.18
450%
-72%
628%
446%
ROI
306%
2112%
591%
Orders
Click Conv Bounce Rate Total Sales Rev/Send
229
1.4%
0.6% $ 33,848.54 $
0.08
73
0.8%
0.3% $ 21,531.13 $
0.06
-68%
-41%
-51%
-36%
-29%
ROI
905%
609%
-33%
3
17
467%
(Source: ExactTarget and ClearSaleing, Filter: January and February Birthday Sends)

Twice Monthly Emails
2012
2013
Difference
# of Emails Sends/Email Sent Delivered Unique Opens Unique Clicks Open Rate
5
84163.8 420819
418378
72331
16549
17.3%
3 126510.3333 379531
378444
54171
8834
14.3%
-40%
50% -10%
-10%
-25%
-47%
-17%
CTR
4.0%
2.3%
-41%
(Source: ExactTarget and ClearSaleing, Filter: Sends during Weeks 1 - 11)
25
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 18: CLIENT.com Spring Promotions, February to March, 2010 2013
Week
10
11
Valentine's Day
Email
2010
2011
DPS Deluxe BB &

FB Set 15% off
with $4.99 sh for
Super Bowl
9 Items on sale
for Valentines'
Day
Site-Wide $0.46
shipping for
Super Bowl
Site-Wide $0.14
shipping for
Valentine's Day
Site Wide $2.99 shipping
$2.99 shipping
on CHC, WHP, SS,
ADV, ADVG
ADVG
GWIK $188
CHC $549.99 +
$9.99 shipping
BMSM Campaign
14
New Site email
ADV & ADVG $50

off
BMSM for St.

Pat's Day
$25 off CHC, ADV, Easter Sale: 15%

ADVG
off 27 Items
$20 off OSU

Wagon
Weekend Deal: Outdoor Storage

Bench: $110.99
Site-Wide $4.99
or less shipping
BMSM campaign
Weekend Deal:
Panda Climber
10% off
15% off Fun Fold

Jr. Slide
Site-Wide $2.99
shipping for
Super Bowl
13
Easter Email Multiple
Products on
Sale?
10% off New Spring Toys
10% off ADV and

Weekend Deal:
PROMOTIONS
BY WEEK
2012
12
BMSM Campaign
2013
GWIK $199.99 & GWIK w/Food Combo $209.99
Figure 19: CLIENT.com Emails by Type, 2012 2013
Visits
Email Type
2012
Abandoned Cart
Birthday Club
24
N/A
620
164%
10
314
3040%
634
500
-21%
735
N/A
Quarterly Email
Review Requests
Difference
235
Inventory Alerts
Old Emails
2013
198
-100%
Twice Monthly
4967
5294
7%
Grand Total
6044
7487
24%
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 11)
26
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 20: Multi Channel Conversion Paths, 2013
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2013)
Figure 21: Multi Channel Affiliate Conversion Paths by Source
Source
% of Total Conversions
% Overlapping with Affiliates
Direct
52%
15%
Organic
40%
13%
Paid
25%
9%
Referral
11%
1%
Affiliates
31%
N/A
Email
3%
0%
Social
44%
0%
(Source: Google Analytics, Filters: Weeks 6 12 2013, Transaction Conversions Only)
Figure 22: Facebook Visits to CLIENT.com, 2012 2013
Facebook Social Network
Visits
PageViews
Avg. Visit
Duration
Pages/Visit
Transactions
2012
8,206
17,929
0:01:32
2.18
35
4,312.64
2013
5897
11412
0:01:32
1.94
14
2,540.50
Difference
-28%
-36%
0%
-11%
-60%
Revenue
-41%
(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 12)
27
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 23: Target Product Names from Paid Search Impressions, 2012 2013
Impressions
Click Through Rate
Product Name
Corvette Bed
2012
2013
2012
2013
40839
N/A
3%
Neat and Tidy Cottage
46649
22690
1%
1%
Push Around Buggy
38300
16373
1%
1%
WaterWheel Play Table
32307
15537
1%
0%
Extreme Coaster
16855
11333
5%
4%
Dream Kitchen
8126
9863
3%
2%
Custom Kitchen
15103
9387
2%
2%
Big Folding Slide
1499
9236
4%
1%
Up and Down Roller Coaster
18851
8061
1%
2%
PRODUCT NAMES
Deluxe Kitchen
8860
7633
3%
3%
Choo Choo Wagon
27846
7481
2%
3%
7414
N/A
4%
Clubhouse Climber
19070
7338
5%
3%
Woodland Climber
15429
6238
4%
3%
Playhouse Climber and Swing
10146
5646
3%
1%
Grand Walk In Kitchen
8915
5339
4%
5%
PartyTime Kitchen
8049
5109
2%
2%
Sweetheart Playhouse
10456
4777
2%
3%
KidAlert
8767
4631
2%
1%
Infant to Toddler Swing
(Source: Google AdWords Brand Product Campaigns, Filter: Weeks 6-12. Selected products only)
28
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 24: Highest Brand Aware Metropolitan Areas Delivering Traffic to CLIENT.com
Pages /
Visit
Avg. Visit
Duration
% New
Visits
Bounce
Rate
% of Population
Visiting
Metro
State
Visits
Cleveland-Akron (Canton)
OH
16,437
4.15
0:04:17
60.41%
46.01%
0.59%
Philadelphia
PA
10,662
3.11
0:02:09
75.07%
59.74%
0.18%
Washington DC/Hagerstown MD
DC
9,163
3.26
0:02:21
73.41%
55.36%
0.15%
Boston MA-Manchester
MA
8,294
3.56
0:02:27
68.66%
51.43%
0.18%
Columbus
OH
6,593
3.38
0:01:35
83.04%
58.09%
0.34%
Pittsburgh
PA
5,970
2.97
0:01:41
79.20%
66.43%
0.25%
Raleigh-Durham (Fayetteville)
NC
2,909
3.94
0:02:54
65.76%
44.96%
0.19%
Nashville
TN
2,908
3.01
0:02:01
70.91%
59.59%
0.17%
Portland
OR
2,486
3.02
0:02:01
75.50%
60.26%
0.48%
Lansing
MI
2,473
3.29
0:02:42
66.44%
49.41%
0.53%
San Antonio
TX
2,131
4.36
0:03:41
64.24%
44.44%
1.86%
Wilkes Barre-Scranton
PA
1,442
3.95
0:02:27
68.38%
50.14%
0.26%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy
NY
1,396
3.91
0:02:56
66.69%
43.19%
0.16%
Charleston-Huntington
WV
1,297
4.2
0:03:07
64.76%
43.02%
0.22%
Dayton
OH
1,243
3.96
0:02:42
70.15%
39.90%
0.16%
Madison
WI
1,103
3.59
0:02:36
65.82%
51.04%
0.18%
Youngstown
OH
1,080
4.7
0:02:45
63.24%
34.63%
0.19%
Green Bay-Appleton
WI
932
5.14
0:04:01
64.16%
39.06%
0.30%
Des Moines-Ames
IA
909
4.7
0:03:21
63.48%
40.15%
0.15%
Toledo
OH
909
3.69
0:02:37
70.08%
46.42%
0.15%
Rapid City
SD
900
6.5
0:01:22
95.11%
7.56%
0.65%
Rochester
NY
895
4.12
0:02:28
63.02%
43.58%
0.43%
Lexington
KY
827
4.15
0:03:09
67.96%
42.44%
0.17%
Savannah
GA
698
4.33
0:03:32
62.89%
42.41%
0.19%
Burlington VT-Plattsburgh
VT
652
4.69
0:03:07
57.98%
42.33%
0.22%
Johnstown-Altoona
PA
622
4.59
0:04:38
69.61%
37.14%
0.23%
Greenville-New Bern-Washington
NC
605
3.72
0:02:33
67.60%
48.26%
0.47%
(Source: Google Analytics and Census.gov, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2013)
29
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 25: Top 40% of SERP Impressions by Hour of Day, Day of Week, and Device
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun
Computer
Smartphone
Tablet
AM
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
PM
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
(Source: Google AdWords, Filter: Weeks 6 11, 2013, top 40% of impressions)
30
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
SEOmoz Screenshots
Figure 26: SEOmoz Keyword Rankings Report Example
TOP RELEVANT KEYWORDS
(Source: SEOmoz, Filter: CATEGORY keyword)
31
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 27: SEOmoz Keyword Difficulty Report
PRODUCT CATEGORY
TOP RANKING PAGES
(Source: SEOmoz, Filter: PRODUCT CATEGORY keyword)
32
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 28: SEOmoz Organic Traffic Data
(Source: Google Analytics via SEOmoz, Filter: last 6 months)
Figure 29: SEOmoz On-Page Optimization Report
RELEVANT KEYWORDS
(Source: SEOmoz, Filter: PRODUCT CATEGORY keywords)
33
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Figure 30: SEOmoz Competitive Link Comparison
CLIENT.com
COMPETITOR
COMPETITOR
COMPETITOR
Figure 31: SEOmoz Crawl Diagnostics Summary
(Source: SEOmoz, Filter: Crawl March 15, 2013)
34
M. Ullmo
CLIENT
LOGO
Bibliography
ComScore. (2012, February 23). 2012 Mobile Future In Focus. Retrieved April 2012, from ComScore:
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2012/2012_Mobile_Future_in_Focus
ComScore. (2012, December 13). Brave New Digital World. Retrieved December 2012, from ComScore:
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2012/Brave_New_Digital_World
ComScore. (2013, February 22). 2013 Mobile Future in Focus. Retrieved March 2013, from ComScore:
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations_and_Whitepapers/2013/2013_Mobile_Future_in_Focus
Google. (2010, May 21). Search More Securely With Encripted Search. Retrieved from Google Blog:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/search-more-securely-with-encrypted.html
Google. (2012, June). Shoppers at the Zero Moment of Truth Handbook. Retrieved from Google Think:
http://www.google.com/think/research-studies/2012-zmot-handbook.html
Google/Ipsos/Sterling. (2012, August). The New Multi-Screen World Study. Retrieved January 2013, from Google Think:
http://www.google.com/think/research-studies/the-new-multi-screen-world-study.html
Pew Research Center. (2013, February 14). Pew Internet: Social Networking. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American
Life Project: http://pewinternet.org/Commentary/2012/March/Pew-Internet-Social-Networking-full-detail.aspx
SEOmoz. (2011, November 14). Quanitfying Google's Keyword Referral Data. Retrieved from SEOmoz:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/quantifying-googles-keyword-referral-data-shutdown
35
M. Ullmo

Revenue Analysis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Revenue Analysis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

CLIENT LOGO

A comprehensive view of current marketing efforts,

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

12% of our sales are coming from a

Although resellers provide a nice boost

Instead, the cause of sales decline is a dramatic decrease in the number of

Figure 2: CLIENT.com Revenue without PRODUCT GROUP items or Reseller Sales

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Email Products Other

(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 11, PC visits only)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

(Source: Google Analytics)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Figure 16: Birthday Club Email Performance, 2012 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Multi-Channel Conversion Paths

(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 12, 2013)

Figure 21: Multi Channel Affiliate Conversion Paths by Source

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Facebook Visits to CLIENT.com, 2012 2013

Figure 6: Visits to CLIENT.com by Device for Weeks 6-11, 2012 2013

(Pew Research Center, 2013)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Optimal Target Segments

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Highest Brand Aware Metropolitan Areas Delivering Traffic to CLIENT.com

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Day Parting/Device Targets

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Quick Win Opportunities

Figure 26: SEOmoz Keyword Rankings Report Example

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Figure 30: SEOmoz Competitive Link Comparison

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Analysis Data Sets

(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Figure 3: Reseller Contribution to CLIENT.com Revenue by Week

(Source: CLIENT Direct Sales Data)

Figure 4: CLIENT.com Revenue by Category without Reseller Sales

2013 YoY Difference

Of the top 30 products sold in 2012, the

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

YoY Volume Decrease

YoY Revenue Difference

Figure 6: Visits to CLIENT.com by Device for Weeks 6-11, 2012 2013

(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6 - 12)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Figure 7: CLIENT.com Revenue by Device, 2013

(Source: Google Analytics, Filter: Weeks 6-11, 2013)

Figure 8: Distribution of Organic Search Visits by Search Engine

(Source: Google Analytics, weeks 6 11, 2012 - 2013)

Figure 9: Organic Google Search Keyword Groups

(Source: Google Analytics, Filter; Weeks 6 11, 2012 - 2013)

CLIENT Revenue Review 2013

Figure 10: CLIENT Branded Keyword Impressions

Sand & Water