Phase 2 Agency Toolkit: Budget, CRO, A/B Test

Phase 2 Agency Toolkit

Phase 2 asks you to stop building and start behaving like an agency: audit, justify, defend. These four templates are the formats your graded deliverables (A1, A2, A3) are expected to follow.

Each template gives you:

A copy-paste skeleton with the sections the rubric looks for
A worked sample — mostly Valley Home Care, the fictional Kathmandu AC/plumbing SME used throughout the Phase 1 Deliverable Toolkit, plus one published Nepal case
A submission checklist to run before you upload

Naming: mba-dm-a1-[yourname] — swap a1 for a2 or a3 on the other deliverables. Name + date at the top · label every screenshot.

Samples vs proof: Valley Home Care is a teaching sample. For published Nepal numbers, use the Case Readings Map.

Which template for which deliverable

Deliverable	Sessions	Template	Rubric rows it feeds
A1 — Campaign Strategy Deck	9–12	Template 1 + Template 2	Budget & KPI Rationale · Risks & Compliance · Problem/Opportunity Insight
A2 — Content Calendar + Ad Assets	13–16, 21, 24	Template 3	Persona Alignment · Scheduling Logic · A/B Test Plan
A3 — SEO Mini-Audit	17–20	Template 4	Keyword Mapping · On-Page Fixes · Prioritised Actions

Scoring across all three: Grading Rubrics.

flowchart LR
    A1[A1: Campaign Strategy] --> T1[Template 1: Budget and CYA Memo]
    A1 --> T2[Template 2: Friction-Fix CRO Memo]
    A2[A2: Content Calendar and Ads] --> T3[Template 3: Content and A/B Test Matrix]
    A3[A3: SEO Mini-Audit] --> T4[Template 4: SEO Triage Matrix]
    T1 --> SUB[Submission-Ready Deliverables]
    T2 --> SUB
    T3 --> SUB
    T4 --> SUB

Figure 1: Phase 2 deliverables and template mapping

Template 1: Bottom-Up Budget and CYA Memo (A1)

Use in: Session 10: Budget Rationale & Risk/Compliance, assembled into A1 in Session 11–12.

Most students lose marks here by asking for a number instead of deriving one. A budget memo has three jobs: show the math, name the playbook, and prove you have thought about what could go wrong with someone else’s money.

Copy-paste skeleton

BUDGET ALLOCATION & RISK DEFENSE MEMO
Business: [name]        Prepared by: [name]        Date: [date]

1. THE ACQUISITION MATH
Target goal:                        [e.g. 40 booked jobs / month]
Historical or estimated CPA:        [e.g. NPR 2,500 per booked job]
Base required ad spend:             [goal x CPA = NPR 100,000]
Agency testing buffer (20%):        [NPR 20,000]
Total recommended monthly spend:    [NPR 120,000]
Source of the CPA figure:           [your data, client data, or benchmark + caveat]

2. THE AGENCY PLAYBOOK ALLOCATION
Selected framework:                 [The 70/20/10 Rule / The Cold Start / The Brand Moat]
Allocation:                         [e.g. 70% Meta lead gen | 20% Google Search intent | 10% test bucket]
Strategic rationale:                [one sentence tying the split to the business's lifecycle stage]

3. THE CYA (COVER YOUR ASS) PROTOCOL
Budget guardrail:  Daily account spend hard-capped at [NPR X] across all platforms.
Policy compliance: Ad copy will strictly avoid [specific prohibited claim] to protect account health.
Data privacy:      All email targeting lists are 1st-party opt-in only; zero scraped or
                   purchased data, to protect sender reputation and deliverability.
Escalation:        If [cost per lead exceeds NPR X for 7 consecutive days], we pause and re-plan.

Worked sample — Valley Home Care

BUDGET ALLOCATION & RISK DEFENSE MEMO
Business: Valley Home Care (AC repair & plumbing, Kathmandu Valley)
Prepared by: [Your Name]        Date: [Date]

1. THE ACQUISITION MATH
Target goal:                        40 booked jobs per month (Phase 1 sandbox objective)
Estimated cost per booked job:      NPR 2,500 (own GA4 + call-tracking estimate, 60-day window)
Base required ad spend:             40 x 2,500 = NPR 100,000
Agency testing buffer (20%):        NPR 20,000 (new creative + audience tests)
Total recommended monthly spend:    NPR 120,000

2. THE AGENCY PLAYBOOK ALLOCATION
Selected framework:  The 70/20/10 Scaling Split (post-launch, pre-scale stage)
Allocation:          70% Meta lead generation (NPR 84,000) | 20% Google Search high-intent
                     (NPR 24,000) | 10% test bucket (NPR 12,000: local SEO/GBP work and one
                     channel experiment)
Strategic rationale: Demand already exists for emergency repairs, so 70% goes to the
                     cheapest volume channel while 20% captures bottom-of-funnel search intent;
                     the sandbox is too new for a retention-heavy "Brand Moat" split.

3. THE CYA (COVER YOUR ASS) PROTOCOL
Budget guardrail:  Daily spend hard-capped at NPR 4,000 across all platforms (NPR 120,000 / 30 days)
                   — a missed zero on a daily budget can drain the month overnight.
Policy compliance: Ad copy will avoid "guaranteed fix", "100% safe for all units", and any
                   health/electrical-safety claims; ads promise a visit, not a cure.
Data privacy:      Only 1st-party opt-in leads from the site form and WhatsApp go into custom
                   audiences. No purchased lists — they would burn the domain's sender reputation.
Escalation:        If cost per booked job exceeds NPR 4,000 for 7 consecutive days, pause the
                   worst ad set and re-allocate to Search.

All-in view: NPR 120,000 ad spend + 10% creative/tooling + 5% contingency = approx. NPR 138,000,
which is the defensible floor behind the ~NPR 150,000 working budget pitched in Phase 1.

Submission checklist

Every number in Section 1 traces to a source you can name (or is labelled an assumption)
The buffer is justified as testing, not padding
The playbook is named and the split sums to 100%
The rationale references the business’s lifecycle stage, not “best practice”
All three CYA lines are specific to this business (not generic “we follow policies”)
A daily cap is stated in NPR and the arithmetic is checkable

Template 2: Friction-Fix CRO Memo (Session 9 and A1)

Use in: Session 9: Advanced Funnel Audit, then the Problem/Opportunity section of A1.

“The website is confusing” earns no marks. This three-line formula forces you to name the stage, the friction, the fix, and the metric. It is the same structure used in the published bookstore CRO case.

Copy-paste skeleton

FRICTION-FIX MEMO — [Business name]
Funnel stage:      [Awareness / Consideration / Conversion / Retention]
Baseline metric:   [current number + where it came from]

Observation (the leak):   During the [stage] stage, users are abandoning the funnel because
                          [specific friction point].
Intervention (the fix):   We will deploy [specific, concrete action].
Expected outcome (metric): By removing this friction, we project a [X]% improvement in
                          [negative metric], and a lift in [positive KPI].

Evidence: [screenshot, funnel number, or competitor benchmark that supports the diagnosis]

Worked sample A — Kathmandu bookstore (published case)

FRICTION-FIX MEMO — Kathmandu bookstore e-commerce
Funnel stage:      Conversion
Baseline metric:   5-step checkout; high cart abandonment (published case)

Observation (the leak):   During the Conversion stage, first-time Nepali online buyers abandon
                          because checkout runs 5 steps, requires account creation, and offers
                          no familiar local wallets before payment.
Intervention (the fix):   Ship a 3-step guest checkout with eSewa/Khalti/bank card logos beside
                          the pay button, security badges, shipping cost shown early, and
                          mobile-optimised form fields.
Expected outcome (metric): Project a 22% decrease in cart abandonment and an 18% lift in
                          first-time buyer conversion rate (3-month A/B test result: -22%
                          abandonment, +18% first-time CVR, +15% completed purchases).

Evidence: Funnel step report before/after rollout; payment-method split; checkout screenshots.

Worked sample B — Valley Home Care (service business variant)

FRICTION-FIX MEMO — Valley Home Care
Funnel stage:      Consideration
Baseline metric:   Form-fill rate 1.8% of landing-page sessions (GA4, 30-day window)

Observation (the leak):   During the Consideration stage, visitors who click "Get a Quote" hit a
                          10-field form asking for address, unit type, budget, and preferred slot
                          before anyone has spoken to them, and 68% leave the page without
                          submitting.
Intervention (the fix):   Replace the long form with a single "Chat with us on WhatsApp" button
                          plus a 3-field callback form (name, phone, problem type) for people who
                          prefer not to chat.
Expected outcome (metric): Project a 30% reduction in form abandonment and an improvement in
                          booked-job conversion rate from 1.8% to 2.4% of sessions.

Evidence: GA4 landing-page report, form abandonment screenshot, heatmap of the fold.

The lesson worth writing down: buying traffic is pointless if the bucket has a hole. For a service business, your “guest checkout” is usually the WhatsApp button — the lowest-friction way for a stranger to talk to you.

Submission checklist

Exactly one leak per memo, and the funnel stage is named
The friction point is concrete (a step count, a field count, a missing payment method)
The intervention is something you could actually ship this week
The expected outcome is a number attached to a named metric, and the baseline is sourced
A retail example (above the fold) and a service example are both understood, so you can adapt either

Template 3: Agency Content and A/B Test Matrix (A2)

Use in: Session 13: Persona-Driven Content Calendar, Session 15: A/B Test Design, finalised in Session 24.

A standard calendar shows dates and pictures. An agency matrix shows the variable being tested and the hypothesis it will prove. Every row must be a test, not a post.

Copy-paste skeleton

Date	Persona Target	Core Message / Hook	Creative Asset	A/B Test Variable	Hypothesis to Prove
[dd Mmm]	[persona]	[hook line]	[asset + format]	Variable: [the ONE thing changing]	[direction + metric + why]

Add a Platform column if your A2 brief explicitly asks for platform placement — the rubric looks for it. Keep one variable per row; change the headline or the image or the CTA, never all three.

Worked sample — Valley Home Care

Date	Persona Target	Core Message / Hook	Creative Asset	A/B Test Variable	Hypothesis to Prove
Oct 1	First-time homeowner	“AC not cooling? Same-day repair in Kathmandu.”	15s video (before–after)	Variable: Video hook (pain point vs. aspirational comfort)	The pain-point hook will yield ≥20% lower cost per click than the aspirational cut.
Oct 4	Price-conscious family	“Transparent pricing. No surprise invoices.”	Static image (published price grid)	Variable: CTA button (“Get a Quote” vs. “See Prices”)	“See Prices” will drive higher CTR because it signals lower commitment than a quote request.
Oct 7	Retargeting (warm visitors)	“Still deciding? Book a free diagnostic visit.”	Carousel (top 3 services)	Variable: Offer (10% off first service vs. free diagnostic visit)	The free-visit offer will convert better than a discount, because the blocker is trust, not price.
Oct 10	Organic / blog traffic	“Monsoon AC checklist: 6 checks before the rains.”	Single image + link post	Variable: Landing page (service page vs. checklist lead magnet)	The checklist lead magnet will capture emails at a lower cost per lead and feed the nurture flow.

Scheduling logic to state out loud: posting cadence (e.g. 3 feed posts + 1 story per week), why those days (weekend DIY searches vs. weekday emergency demand), and how the tests sequence so only one variable moves at a time.

Submission checklist

One isolated variable per row, stated as “Variable: X”
Every hypothesis names a direction (higher/lower) and a metric
Dates and cadence match the calendar you actually built (no orphan rows)
Creative assets are labelled and attached (image/video file names, not “some images”)
The test window is realistic for a student budget — and you say what “no clear winner” looks like

Template 4: SEO Triage Matrix (A3)

Use in: Session 17: Technical SEO Audit, Session 19: On-Page Fixes & Prioritisation, consolidated in Session 20.

Automated tools will hand you 50 issues and a red score. A client will read none of it. This matrix forces the two judgements that actually get graded: business impact and effort.

Copy-paste skeleton

SEO Issue Identified	Business Impact	Effort to Fix	Prioritized Action Plan
[issue + where you found it]	High: [commercial consequence]	Low: [time/cost estimate]	Priority 1 (Do Now): [who does what, by when]

Rate Business Impact and Effort to Fix as High / Med / Low — the two ratings decide the priority.

Triage rule of thumb

High impact / Low effort → Priority 1, do now
High impact / High effort → Priority 2, plan and resource it
Low impact / any effort → Priority 3, defer with an owner and a quarter

Worked sample — Valley Home Care

SEO Issue Identified	Business Impact	Effort to Fix	Prioritized Action Plan
Missing local schema markup on the homepage and service pages	High: Invisible in “near me” map-pack results, where emergency repair searches happen	Low: 30-minute dev/tag-manager task	Priority 1 (Do Now): Generate LocalBusiness + Service schema and inject via Tag Manager this week.
No dedicated service pages (AC repair, plumbing, installation all on one page)	High: Losing intent-based search traffic to competitors with per-service pages	High: Needs copywriting plus dev/template work	Priority 2 (Plan): Draft 3 core service pages targeting the primary commercial keywords this month.
Images missing alt text across ~50 gallery and service images	Low: Minor accessibility and image-ranking drag	Med: Tedious manual entry, easy to batch with a junior	Priority 3 (Defer): Assign to a junior team member for end-of-quarter clean-up.
No internal links from blog posts to service pages	Med: Weak topical authority flow to money pages	Low: Add 2–3 contextual links per post	Priority 1 (Do Now): Add contextual links in the 5 most-visited posts during the next content pass.

Also required in A3: the keyword map / content-gap table and the SEM + Quality Score audit from Session 20. Support this matrix with the On-Page SEO Checklist.

Submission checklist

Every issue is stated in business language, not tool language
Both Impact and Effort are rated, and the Priority follows from the two ratings
Each priority has an owner and a timeframe (now / this month / this quarter)
No raw 50-page tool dump — anything not worth a row gets one appended line: “monitored, no action”
Screenshots or crawl exports attached as evidence

Where these templates land in your submissions

Template	Feeds	Session note entry point
Budget & CYA Memo	A1 — Budget & KPI Rationale, Risks & Compliance	Session 10, Session 11
Friction-Fix CRO Memo	A1 — Problem/Opportunity Insight	Session 9
Content & A/B Test Matrix	A2 — Persona Alignment, Scheduling Logic, A/B Test Plan	Session 13, Session 15
SEO Triage Matrix	A3 — Prioritised Actions	Session 17, Session 19, Session 20

Back to the Phase 2 Hub · Companion pack: Phase 1 Deliverable Toolkit

Phase 2 Agency Toolkit: Budget, CRO, A/B Test & SEO Templates