About Missing Conversions

Who does the work

Syed Anns. Every audit, start to finish.

The background is a decade of analytics and tag implementation work, across GA4, Google Tag Manager and the Conversions API, for businesses running their own measurement and for the agencies delivering it on their behalf. That work is where the audit checklist comes from. It is not assembled from a template, it is the set of failures that keep recurring across accounts, in roughly the order they cost the most money.

The person who reads your container is the person who writes the report, records the walkthrough and answers your follow-up questions. No juniors, no handoffs, no subcontracted delivery under a different name. That is a deliberate constraint on how many audits can run at once, and it is why booking is a conversation about real dates rather than a queue.

Why the offer is shaped this way

Tracking work is usually sold in one of two shapes, and both fail the buyer in a predictable way.

The first is a cheap audit that produces a document. Someone reviews the account, lists thirty observations, and hands over a PDF. Nothing in the account changes. The findings sit in a shared drive until the list is stale, because the team that would fix them is already fully booked with the work that generated the problems in the first place. A list of defects is not a repair.

The second is an open-ended retainer. The engagement has no defined end, so the incentive quietly shifts from resolving the problem to remaining attached to it. Even when the work is honest, the buyer cannot tell what they are getting for the fee in month seven, and the decision to start requires a level of trust that a new supplier has not earned yet.

The Missing Conversions Audit is the third shape. Fixed scope, fixed price, fixed duration, and fixes included. It ends. You can see exactly what you bought.

Why fixed scope beats an open-ended arrangement

A retainer prices access to a person. An audit prices an outcome. That difference changes every incentive downstream.

With a flat $900 and a five day window, being fast and being right are the same thing. There is no reward for extending the work and no argument about whether an hour was in scope. The estimating risk sits with us, where it belongs, because we are the party who can estimate it.

It is also a decision one person can make. Nobody assembles a committee for $900. Broken tracking tends to stay broken not because the fix is difficult, but because the process of buying the fix is heavier than the problem feels on any given Tuesday. Removing that friction is part of the product.

And tracking is not an infinite job. Most accounts need one hard reset followed by periodic verification after releases. Selling a permanent engagement to solve a finite problem gets the shape of the problem wrong.

Why all four systems, not just one

A conversion is a relay, and every handoff is a place to drop the baton. The browser has to record the event. The dataLayer has to describe it correctly and in time. Google Tag Manager has to fire the right tag once, on the right condition. The ad platform has to receive it, match it to a user, and deduplicate it against the same event arriving by another route. Consent gates all of it.

Auditing GA4 alone finds the symptom. The cause is usually one layer up or one layer down, in a trigger, a missing parameter, a consent signal that never updates, or a Conversions API event with nothing to match on. That is why the audit covers GA4, Google Tag Manager, Google Ads and Meta signals, and consent as one system rather than four reviews stapled together.

Google and Meta product names appear here descriptively. This company is not affiliated with, endorsed by or partnered with either.

What this company does not do

• It does not run ads. No media buying, no campaign management, no creative. The audit fixes what the campaigns learn from, which is a different job and a better one to keep independent. If your tracking is being audited by the same firm whose performance depends on how the numbers read, you own a conflict of interest.
• It does not build websites or apps.
• It does not run conversion rate optimization or design testing. Testing built on unreliable measurement produces confident conclusions about noise.
• It does not resell software. Tooling recommendations are made on fit, and there is no vendor whose product we are incentivized to place.
• It does not give legal or compliance advice. Consent findings describe how your measurement behaves and where the risk sits. What your consent posture should be is a question for your counsel.

Working with agencies

Agencies are a large part of the work, and the arrangement is straightforward. Audits can be white labeled, with your brand on the report and delivery underneath it. Client contact happens only if you want it. Partner pricing applies to volume, agreed once rather than negotiated per account.

The white label audit page sets out how the handoff works in detail. Most agencies use it the same way: on a new account during onboarding, so the baseline is trustworthy before anyone is judged against it, and on any account where reported performance and the client’s own revenue numbers have stopped agreeing.

What verified means here

Every claim in a Missing Conversions Report is reproducible. A finding names the event, the condition that produces it, the evidence, and what it costs. If you want to confirm a finding yourself before acting on it, you can, and the report is written on the assumption that you will.

That is the whole standard the company runs on. Not a score, not a grade out of a hundred, not a dashboard of green ticks. Either the number your system reports matches what actually happened, or it does not, and you should be able to see which.