Upload your Google, Meta, and LinkedIn exports. Get a clear view of spend, return, and what to scale or cut.
No credit card needed · Make a similar deck in 5 minutes
Drop in your ad reports —
no setup required.
Executive Summary — blended efficiency
Performance Snapshot — pacing variance
Google Ads — Search/PMax/Shopping mix
Brand vs Non-Brand — protect vs discipline
Meta Performance — retargeting vs broad
LinkedIn Performance — Message vs Sponsored
Funnel & Conversion — proxy funnel
Creative Roundup — format gaps
Hover the orange chips — each one
bends the deck differently.
The prompt tells Coreworks what period to cover, who to write for, and which findings to surface. Here's what each part is doing.
Build an across Google, Meta, and LinkedIn. Audience is the — focus on efficiency and where to scale. , then break down by channel. Call out that and that . Treat funnel data as . Tone: analytical, action-oriented.
Each thing it spots
shapes one slide.
Coreworks looks over your combined spend and results first. Here's what it flags — and what each flag turns into.
Sponsored Content burned $12.2K for 0 leads while Message Ads delivered the cheapest leads at $52.6 — so Coreworks flags the wasted spend and the channel worth keeping.
Creates a "pause this until it's fixed" callout, keeping Message Ads as the one to lean on.
Inside Google, branded returns 17.63 versus just 1.78 for non-brand, so Coreworks concludes brand is doing the work while weak non-brand (at $67.8 per result) drags the average down.
Creates a "protect brand, tighten non-brand" comparison, suggesting weak non-brand spend move into top searches.
Retargeting leads at 3.30 return / $39.9 while Broad is both the priciest and weakest at $124.1 and 1.05, so Coreworks singles Broad out as the one to cut.
Creates a cost-and-return chart, with a "scale retargeting, tighten or pause Broad" message.
Spend came in about $1M under the $1.1M plan at a healthy 2.29 return, so Coreworks concludes there's unused budget the winners could absorb.
Creates a "scale the winners" summary, naming Google as the strongest ($80.4K spend → $238.1K revenue at 2.96).
Slide order is the argument — here's
why each one sits where it does.
Slide order is the argument. Here's why each slide sits where it does — and how the deck moves the room from blended efficiency to channel decisions.
The agenda sets the four review areas; the executive summary lands the five blended numbers (spend $117.6K, conversions, CPA $55.5, revenue $269.1K, ROAS 2.29) so the room agrees on the month before any channel debate.
The cross-channel table shows actual vs planned spend and the variance, so every channel deep-dive that follows is read against plan, not in isolation.
Google first (biggest spend and revenue), then Meta, then LinkedIn — and LinkedIn carries an explicit definition note (leads, not purchases) so its CPL isn't misread against ROAS channels.
Impressions→clicks are shown as a proxy funnel with the downstream gap stated, keeping the deck honest about what the data can and can't prove.
The creative roundup turns analysis into the next production brief — what's resonating, and the format gaps to fill — so the meeting exits with the next sprint already scoped.
Real teams, real spend — same
template.
"Pulling all channels into one view used to be a half-day of work. Now it's done with one upload"
"The deck caught $12K of LinkedIn spend that produced zero leads. That callout alone paid for the month."
"Every number traces back to a row in the export. When finance asks where blended ROAS came from, I can show them in one click."
— ready when you are —
Use the same prompt, upload your ad-platform exports, and make your own decision-ready review.
No credit card needed · Make a similar deck in 5 minutes