Ad platforms report what they can see. Loyalz starts from settled orders, ranks creative on store revenue, and shows the path a customer actually took to get there.
An acquisition strategy is only as good as the number it is judged on, and that number is usually reported by the party being judged. Attribution modelling is the choice of how credit for a sale is divided between the touchpoints that preceded it. Loyalz does not settle that argument — it shows where the models disagree, and gives you one reference they cannot mark their own homework against: what your store actually took.
Meta claims half again as many purchases as the store settled. Nobody is lying — each counts a different thing, over a different window, with a different view of the customer.
The shape is real and routine; the numbers are a worked example. Most tools resolve this by picking a winner and hiding the disagreement. The size of the gap is information — it tells you how much of your reporting is modelled rather than observed.
GA4's own on-site engagement and revenue sit in the same row as each ad's Meta spend, matched on the ad id.
Ads whose utm_content does not match the ad id exactly show zero, which looks the same as an ad that genuinely had no traffic.
Worked example. Every model claims more than the store recorded, because every model is generous in its own direction. The store's number is not a fifth model — it is the constraint the other four have to fit inside.
Recorded first-party on your own site, not in someone else's browser storage. Visits with no campaign markers are classified as direct, organic or referral rather than discarded — which is why most channel reports add up to less traffic than you had.
The plugin records each visitor's marketing touchpoints in a first-party cookie — utm parameters, the gclid / fbclid / ttclid / msclkid click identifiers, referrer and landing page — and hands the chain to the order at checkout.
Twenty most recent entries, kept since the last purchase and expiring after ninety days of inactivity — not ninety days of history. Visits with no campaign markers are classified as direct, organic or referral rather than discarded.
Demo video
6.4×
platform-reported
UGC hook, 15s
6.2×
POAS 2.4×
UGC hook, 15s
31
new customers
Demo video
→
UGC hook
→
UGC hook
WINNER
Knowing an ad worked is not enough to brief the next one. Eight fields are recorded; the panel currently surfaces the hook, and we would rather show you that than imply the whole set is on screen today.
Claude reads each creative's copy and preview image once and records what the ad actually says — hook, offer, CTA, tone, visual style, audience, claims and emotions.
One analysis covers every ad running that copy. The dashboard shows the hook next to an analysed ad's numbers.
Worked example. Blended CAC divides all ad spend by all new customers, including the 240 who arrived without costing anything. That understates what paid acquisition really costs — the product labels the tile accordingly rather than quietly flattering the number.
Mission Control shows how many identified customers in a period were placing their first order in the history Loyalz has synced, and divides that period's ad spend by that count.
One blended cost per new customer for the whole store. Not per channel, not per campaign. Customers who arrived organically are in the denominator too, so the figure understates paid acquisition cost wherever unpaid acquisition happens.
Illustrative layout. Every product in this category lets you build a dashboard — the question is what there is to put on it. Ad spend and settled order lines are rows in the same table, so a widget can hold both without an export step.
One query returns ad spend across every connected platform next to store or CRM revenue for the same period.
Not per campaign and not per ad: store and CRM rows carry no campaign dimension, so a cross-source formula collapses to zero if you ask for one. The product warns you when it does.
Which creative format brought us customers who came back, and what did those customers cost?
query_metrics
list_metric_catalog
get_purchase_history
Over the last quarter, UGC video brought 212 new customers at £71 each. Static offer ads brought 318 at £54.
But 41% of the UGC cohort ordered again within 90 days, against 19% of the static cohort. On trailing revenue per customer the cheaper channel is the more expensive one.
Want me to build a dashboard tracking both cohorts?
Illustrative exchange. Every competing MCP in this category reaches the ad platforms. Ours reaches ad spend and what the customer that spend acquired went on to be worth, because both live in one table. The assistant inside the panel is read-only; authoring happens over the MCP server with a token you mint.
Seven competing products were read while this page was written. Not one publishes a confidence interval, a match rate, a minimum volume, or a single condition under which their method fails.
Twenty minutes, live, on your data. We compute the gap between what your platforms claim and what your store took, while you watch.
Book the twenty minutes →