18 people, retainer clients — what got built, function by function
Baycrest's data stops on Thursday and Halloran's calls are undercounted, so those two are held. The other ten are written and formatted the way each client asks for them.
Spend held at last week's level and consult requests went from 41 to 47. Thirty-nine of the 47 came through one ad group, "invisalign near me".
It is the same group Priya flagged for pausing on July 9, when the cost per lead looked wrong on a seven-day window. On ninety it reads the other way. Both windows are in the report, side by side, so the July call and this week's number can be read against each other instead of one quietly replacing the other.
Two things to watch. Calls answered dropped Wednesday and Thursday, which lines up with their front desk being short-staffed and not with anything in the account; the report describes it and stops there. The competitor bidding on their brand name is still there, third week running.
Needs you
Re-auth Baycrest's Google Ads before 09:00, or tell me to send the report with the three days missing.
Baycrest's Google Ads account stopped returning data after Thursday 14:00. I left the three missing days out of the report and said so; no average went in the gap.
Tell me whether to send it with the call count flagged low or hold it until the number pool is repointed.
Halloran's call tracking is still pointing at the old number pool since the swap on the 24th. Their calls are undercounted. I flagged the line but I can't tell you by how much.
Confirm the move to Fridays, or tell me to send theirs today as usual.
Cortez asked to move to Fridays. Theirs is written and not sent.
Week 35 retainer report · written 04:52
| Spend | $3,180 was $3,140 |
| Consult requests | 47 was 41 |
| Cost per request | $67.66 was $76.59 |
| Calls answered | 88% was 94% |
Ready to send (10)
Baycrest is back — re-authed 06:52. It was our agency access that lapsed, not their account, so Fri Sat Sun are in the report again. Rob: Cortez told me Fridays, on the call on the 26th. Theirs shouldn't go today. On Mon 31 Aug at 05:41, Monday-Report <reports@northgate.co> wrote: > Baycrest's Google Ads account stopped returning data after Thursday 14:00. I left the three missing days out of the report and said so; no average went in the gap.
Attn: Ron Kestrel
Re: Six-month retainer — lifecycle response first, paid search second
Kestrel doesn't have a traffic problem. They have eleven days between someone asking for a quote and anyone answering.
Ron said the spring campaign "worked but didn't convert." His own numbers say the form fills arrived. The median time to first reply on a spring quote request was eleven days — his figure, from the call, not mine.
So the proposal opens there instead of on media. Eleven days is not an advertising problem, and it is the cheapest line in the document to fix. Spending more at the top of a funnel that answers in eleven days buys more of the same wait.
Scope runs in two phases so they can stop after the first. Phase one is the reply cadence and the tracking that proves it moved. Phase two is paid search, second even though it is the bigger line.
Two things in the draft are unfinished on purpose. The cover is our plain template, because their new brand guide has not arrived. And the Shopify migration Ron mentioned at minute 38 is raised as a query in the scope section — he never said whose migration it was, and a scope line that guesses at that is a scope line we argue about in month three.
Open queries — not resolved here
Give me the fee to print, or tell me to send the proposal without the fee page.
You gave them a number on the call — "somewhere in the mid range for what we do." I'm not turning that into a figure.
Say whether to hold for their brand guide or send on our plain template.
They want it to match their new brand guide, which they said they'd send. It hasn't arrived. The cover is our plain template. Their colours can wait for the guide.
Tell me whose Shopify migration Ron meant, or say to leave it out of scope.
Ron mentioned a Shopify migration at minute 38 and never said whose it was. It's written into the scope section as a question, not a line item.
You told me in March never to name a client in a proposal unless they have signed the reference form. Halloran HVAC is the closest match to Kestrel and hasn't signed one, so the case study in the back is Cortez Cabinets — a weaker result, but cleared. Get Halloran to sign and I'll swap it.
Enc: Cortez Cabinets case study, 2 pp · phase-one measurement plan · plain cover, Kestrel brand guide not received
Drafted off the recording, the RFP, their site and 34 of their ads. Nothing in it is my guess at what they meant — where I do not know, there is a query in the margin.
- # scope-and-billing
- # client-fairline
- # client-delmar
- # timesheets
- # traffic
Fairline has been getting a third landing page every month since June and nobody ever added it to the retainer.
Their retainer covers one landing page a month. Since June they have had three, every month, always asked for in Slack and always built. Nobody did anything wrong — the requests came into the same channel as the small stuff, so they never crossed a desk that could say no.
The change order is written, using the rate already in their contract and the wording Dana used for Delmar in April. The contract gives thirty days to bill work outside scope: for the June and July pages that has run out, for August it runs out Friday. It is not sent. It is posted in # scope-and-billing for Dana, whose name goes on it.
Held — needs a person
Raise Fairline's change order at the timesheet floor, or tell me to chase Tess for the two unlogged requests first.
I won't put an hours number on the two requests Tess picked up in Slack for Fairline. Nothing was logged against them and I'm not inventing it. The 11.5 below is timesheets only, so read it as the floor.
Tell me whether the Aug 12 call counts as agreed, and I'll draft the change order or drop it.
Delmar's extra work looks like it was agreed verbally on the Aug 12 call. I can hear it discussed. I can't hear it agreed.
Tell me whether to raise it with Ovid Bakery now or leave it until the renewal.
Ovid Bakery has come in under scope three months running. Opposite problem, not urgent, but it will be sitting there at the November renewal.
The two with no time on them are the review-widget page and the pricing rewrite. Both asked for in # client-fairline, both mine. I never opened Harvest for either.
Raising it at 11.5 today. Friday closes August and I would rather bill the floor than miss the window. Tess, log your two by four and I will amend before the invoice goes.
Fairline yes. Keep Delmar out of the same batch — Aug 12 was talk on a call, not a yes. I am asking them Thursday before anyone drafts anything.
Two more requests in the Fairline channel were finished by Tess with no time logged against them at all. They are named in the change order as unbilled and carry no number. Guessing at hours in front of a client is how you lose the argument.
Nine form fills came in between Friday evening and this morning. Seven have a call on Marcus's calendar this week; two are open on the desk and not booked.
Sunquist filled the form at 2:14 in the morning three weeks before their season, which says more than the form does.
The dropdown said "help with Facebook ads." What they typed in the message box is that the phone stops ringing in September and they don't know why. I answered the box and not the dropdown, and asked two questions back: what happened last September, and who picks up the phone.
They wrote back at 07:40 and took Tuesday 10:00. No budget question and no pricing page went with it — you've said the first call is the qualifier, not the form.
Held — not booked
Tell me whether to book the call or decline on the Halloran conflict.
One of the two held is a competitor of Halloran's in the same three counties. That's a conflict call and it isn't mine. I've written a holding reply and not sent it.
Tell me whether this is the company we lost in February, and I'll merge the records or leave them apart.
The other might be the company we lost in February — different domain, different person, wording that reads the same. I couldn't tell, so I didn't merge the records and I didn't answer. Both are open side by side.
They asked for Monday 08:30. You told me in May you don't take calls before ten on a Monday, so I offered Tuesday and Wednesday and gave them the reason in one line — Marcus is in client reviews Monday mornings. If that rule has changed, tell me and I'll stop working around it.
site form, shared inbox and Marcus's calendar · Fri 18:00 → Mon 06:40 · 7 on the calendar, 2 still on the desk

rang him at 3:40 instead of waiting. no september start — oct 6 or nothing, and the 22nd is a real date, not a nudge. he took it fine. asked twice about the thursday hour though.
on "Ask whether a September start exists" · Unresolved · Reply · Resolve