People also ask
In practice
The averaging trap: a campaign across five markets reporting 25 placements a quarter can be doing well in two markets, barely alive in one and invisible in two more — and the average shows a healthy programme. The report structure that doesn’t lie: a per-market section, each with the same spine (placements qualified, approved, live; go-lives against the market’s plan; links surviving; cost per live placement in that market; the market’s target-page movements; AI-answer presence on that market’s prompt set) — plus the portfolio page that compares markets on identical metrics, so the comparison is arithmetic rather than anecdote.
The per-market nuances the spine carries: currency and pacing (each market’s spend and throughput, normalised), language of the placements (verified in-language, summarised in English for the pack), and the market’s own baseline (every market entered with its own starting rankings and brand-search level, so lift is measured against the right floor). The decision layer the report feeds: markets that move get the next tranche of concentration; markets that stall after an honest period get diagnosed (publisher landscape, localisation gaps, competitive wall) before more budget — and the report is where that diagnosis starts, because the numbers are already separated.
The rhythm: monthly per market, quarterly the portfolio review — with the honesty standard carried over unchanged: every figure traceable to a URL, every market’s slippage visible, and the aggregate used for the boardroom, never instead of the breakdown.
See also: International campaigns: market brief to go-live, Monthly reporting and go-live tracking, Link building reports for leadership.
Related service: International links.
