Sample report · Marketing agency
Demo business — real audit patterns, anonymised
A full demonstration report. The business is fictional; every pattern in it is one we have measured in real audits.
The strategy-call form is slick and the discovery questions are some of the best we’ve heard. But the same brief was quoted a A$3,500 and a A$6,000 monthly retainer, the chat bot never hands off to a person, and WhatsApp goes unread.
WhatsApp never replied, the chat bot never reached a human, and one account manager offered an off-book discount from a personal mobile.
Phone went to voicemail at 10:05; the callback came mid-afternoon.
A$3,500/mo by phone vs. A$6,000/mo by email. Nothing is published, so it isn’t scored — but a buyer notices.
A “this week only” discount from a personal mobile, “don’t mention it to the partners”.
What you're looking at
A demonstration report for a fictional marketing agency, built from anonymised patterns we see in real audits.
One score, nine criteria
Speed, accuracy, personalisation, qualification, follow-up, close, tone, red flags.
Evidence on every finding
Timestamps, transcripts, screenshots and recordings attached in the full report.
Fixes ranked by revenue
What to change this week, in order of money at stake.
01 — Per-channel scorecard
| Channel | First reply | Quoted vs listed price | Follow-ups | Courtesy | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enquiry form | 11 min — booking link | No listed price to compare | 3 in 7 days | Polished · 82 | 79/ 100 |
| Email enquiry | 3h 02m | A$6,000/mo retainer quoted · No listed price to compare | 1 in 7 days | Confident · 76 | 64/ 100 |
| Live chat | 1 min — bot only, no human | Bot linked the FAQ; no human joined | 0 in 7 days | Canned · 40 | 31/ 100 |
| No reply in 7 days | — nothing to compare | 0 in 7 days | — | 0/ 100 Not scored — no reply in 7 days | |
| Phone callRed flagOff-book discount offered from a personal mobile | Voicemail; callback 4h 20m | A$3,500/mo “this week” quoted · No listed price to compare | 2 in 7 days — from a personal mobile | Pushy · 52 | 38/ 100 |
First reply, price accuracy, follow-up and courtesy are four of the nine criteria. A channel with no reply in 7 days scores 0 — there is nothing to judge, so it gets no partial credit. Listed price = what you publish on your website or social profiles. A quote at or above a “from” price counts as consistent; where nothing is listed we show “No listed price to compare” instead of a score. The overall score is the weighted total across the nine criteria.
02 — Criterion scores
Form 11 minutes, email 3h 02m, phone callback 4h 20m. Chat answered in a minute — but only with a bot that never handed off.
Four of five channels replied. The WhatsApp number on the contact page never answered in seven days.
Pricing is “let’s talk” on the website and on social, so there is no listed price to compare and no score. For the record: the same brief was quoted A$6,000/mo by email and A$3,500/mo by phone.
Listed price = what you publish on your website or social profiles.
The email reply referenced our store and our ad spend. The chat bot answered a different question from the one asked.
Excellent discovery on email and phone: margins, current ROAS, creative capacity, decision-maker. Chat asked nothing.
The form sequence sent three useful follow-ups. The phone follow-ups came from a personal mobile; email followed up once.
Form and email both offered a booked strategy call. The phone “close” was a deadline discount rather than a next step.
Polished in writing; the phone callback turned pushy once price came up.
One flag raised — see below.
03 — Red flags, in plain English
The phone callback came from a personal mobile. The account manager offered A$3,500/mo “if you sign this week” and asked us not to mention it to the partners. We report what the evidence shows; we make no claim about intent.
Evidence: Call recording and the calling number are attached in the full report.
Fix → Discounts only with partner sign-off, on agency letterhead; client calls from agency numbers.
Nothing is published, so this isn’t scored — but a founder who emails and calls hears A$6,000 and A$3,500 for the same scope and trusts neither.
Fix → One internal rate card with scope bands, used by everyone who quotes.
05 — Review snapshot and monitoring
41 reviews on Google
1–3★ in the last 90 days
No owner reply on the profile
Still waiting for an owner reply
What it means Rating is excellent. The one unanswered 2★ is the first review a prospect sees when sorting by “lowest”.
The audit reads every profile once. Watch keeps reading them every day — and when a negative review lands, you hear about it within hours, with the reply already drafted.
01Watched daily
Google, ProductReview, hipages, Facebook, Trustpilot and any other review site we find. Every negative review in each profile’s full history is captured on the first sweep.
02Alert within hours
A new 1–3★ review triggers an alert, with the review quoted in full and the profile it is on.
03A drafted reply
Empathetic, de-escalating, no admission of fault — marked “review before use”, ready to paste.
04A removal path, when the rules allow
If the review breaks the platform’s own policy, you get the rule it breaks and the exact appeal route.
One of the 1 unanswered reviews above, as the alert would arrive
Review alert · Google
Sent within hours“Good ideas on the first call, then slow to reply once we’d signed.”
Policy check: a genuine customer experience — not removable. Reply publicly, and fix the cause.
Drafted replyReview before use
Hi M., thank you for the honest review, and I’m sorry replies slowed down after you signed. That’s the opposite of what we want. I’d like to hear what would have made it better — please call me directly on 0491 570 156.
— Alex, Example Growth Agency
When a review breaks the rules · Google
SalesWitness Watch: the appeal drafted for you, citing the rule — you file it.SalesWitness Watch Pro: we file the appeal for you.
Platforms remove policy breaches, not bad opinions. We never file a false report, and we never post or solicit reviews — the public reply goes up either way, because it is the part prospects actually read. Every platform we read has its own route; the same checks apply.
06 — The tape: one enquiry, two replies
Our enquiry · email enquiry
📨 Prospect emails hello@abc-company.com asking for a quote.
✅ Reply 1 — from the company
sales@abc-company.com · quotes list price · books a call
🚩 Reply 2 — from a rep, personally
j.smith.freelance@gmail.com · “I can do it cheaper directly” · asks to move to WhatsApp
07 — Evidence excerpt
[Thu 10:05] Auditor → Voicemail: “Hi, Jordan here, ecommerce brand spending about A$8,000 a month on paid social, looking for an agency. Could someone call me back?”
[Thu 14:25] Personal mobile → “Hey Jordan — I can get you in at A$3,500 a month if you sign this week. Keep that between us, the partners quote higher.”
[— two more follow-up texts from the same personal number over 4 days —]
08 — Case closed: what changes next month
None of this needs new software or a new hire. In order of revenue impact.
Scope bands and prices everyone quotes from; discounts need partner sign-off.
Any pricing or “talk to someone” message pages the on-duty strategist within 10 minutes.
Route it to the shared inbox with an auto-reply, or take it off the contact page.
Before → after
Illustrative — what the three fixes typically change within 30 days.
Quotes for one brief
via One rate card, internal
Chat to a human
via Chat bot hands off to a human
via Staff or remove the WhatsApp number
Confidential. Prepared under the written authorisation of the business owner. Findings reflect the audit record only and are phrased to describe evidence, not intent. Not legal advice. The business and every figure above are illustrative, not a guarantee.
Your report looks like this — with your channels, your prices, your evidence
One SalesWitness Audit shops every channel you offer — enquiry form, email enquiry, live chat, WhatsApp, phone call — twice, 15 days apart, scores them against your own fact sheet and lands in your portal. Owner-authorised, evidence-led.
Compare plans — Watch adds daily review monitoring →