Blog · Board and management reporting
A useful social media dashboard connects campaign spending to attributed orders, net revenue and contribution. This worked example reconciles campaign exports to order totals and shows how a revenue adjustment changes the conclusion.
A Power BI social media dashboard should connect campaign spending to attributed revenue and the contribution left after that spending. Clicks explain activity; the commercial question is whether the attributed orders cover their product costs and media expense. Use a consistent attribution rule and reconcile the underlying orders before moving budget between campaigns.
Microsoft describes a Power BI dashboard as a single page of highlights that can lead readers to related reports. For a social media review, the summary can show spending, attributed revenue, return on ad spend and contribution after media. Supporting detail should identify the campaigns and orders behind those totals.
This is a reporting design for a marketing manager and finance partner. It begins with exports they already have rather than dashboard setup. The wider Power BI dashboard examples cover other business questions that belong in separate reporting views.
Covirage is not affiliated with Microsoft Power BI or Google Analytics.
Before comparing campaigns, write down the date range, currency, attribution method, conversion window and revenue basis. Decide whether the report follows spending dates, order dates or a campaign cohort observed over a fixed period. A weekly spend file paired with lifetime campaign revenue will not answer a weekly efficiency question.
The campaign export needs campaign ID, campaign name, reporting period, spending and clicks. The order file needs a unique order ID, order date, net revenue, product cost and assigned campaign ID. Keep the attribution evidence or allocation alongside the matched order records.
Google's attribution documentation defines attribution as assigning credit to interactions along a customer's path. That distinction matters: revenue attributed to a campaign is revenue assigned under a rule. It is not, by itself, evidence that the campaign caused an incremental purchase.
For this example, each included order is assigned entirely to one campaign. In a fractional allocation, preserve the assigned revenue fraction and check that the fractions across campaigns do not exceed the permitted credit for an order. Never add several full-credit platform totals and label the result unique company revenue.
Juniper Workplace Supply is an illustrative US office-products company reviewing September 2026. Its matched file contains the following campaign totals. Net attributed revenue excludes sales tax and is after recorded discounts and refunds. Product costs use the same order population; all money is USD.
| Campaign | Media spending (USD) | Clicks | Attributed orders | Net attributed revenue (USD) | Product costs (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | 12,000 | 6,000 | 60 | 36,000 | 21,600 |
| Consideration | 18,000 | 4,500 | 90 | 72,000 | 39,600 |
| Retargeting | 10,000 | 2,000 | 50 | 50,000 | 27,500 |
| Total | 40,000 | 12,500 | 200 | 158,000 | 88,700 |
The measures follow directly from these rows:
Return on ad spend (ROAS) = Net attributed revenue / Media spending
Order conversion rate = Attributed orders / Clicks
Contribution after media = Net attributed revenue − Product costs − Media spending
Contribution here excludes overhead and any fulfillment or agency costs not included in the table. Label that boundary clearly. The gross profit margin explanation covers the revenue and product-cost relationship in more depth.
| Campaign | ROAS | Cost per click (USD) | Order conversion rate | Contribution after media (USD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | 3.00 | 2.00 | 1.0% | 2,400 |
| Consideration | 4.00 | 4.00 | 2.0% | 14,400 |
| Retargeting | 5.00 | 5.00 | 2.5% | 12,500 |
| Total | 3.95 | 3.20 | 1.6% | 29,300 |
Ratios and unit costs are rounded to two decimal places, and conversion rates to one decimal place. For Awareness, $36,000 / $12,000 = 3.00 ROAS; 60 / 6,000 = 1.0% conversion; and $36,000 − $21,600 − $12,000 = $2,400 contribution.
Retargeting has the highest revenue per media dollar, while Consideration contributes the most dollars after the listed costs. The distinction gives the budget discussion a clearer starting point. Neither result shows how either campaign would perform at a larger spending level.
Total ROAS is $158,000 / $40,000 = 3.95. It is not the simple average of campaign ratios. Total conversion is 200 / 12,500 = 1.6%, using the summed numerator and denominator.
The cost bridge must also close:
| Reconciliation step | Calculation | Amount (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Net attributed revenue | 36,000 + 72,000 + 50,000 | 158,000 |
| Less product costs | 21,600 + 39,600 + 27,500 | 88,700 |
| Gross profit on attributed orders | 158,000 − 88,700 | 69,300 |
| Less media spending | 12,000 + 18,000 + 10,000 | 40,000 |
| Contribution after media | 69,300 − 40,000 | 29,300 |
The final amount equals $2,400 + $14,400 + $12,500 = $29,300 across campaigns. Tie spending to the unmodified campaign export. Tie the order count to unique matched orders, and reconcile net revenue to the order register, with unattributed revenue and excluded sales documented separately.
A workbook dashboard can use the same reconciled table. The calculation should survive a change in presentation format.
Suppose an approved price adjustment reduces Retargeting's attributed revenue by $5,000, with spending, order count, clicks and product costs unchanged. Because this is a price adjustment rather than a product return, no inventory cost reversal is included.
| Measure | Original (USD) | Revised (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Retargeting revenue | 50,000 | 45,000 |
| Retargeting contribution | 12,500 | 7,500 |
| Total attributed revenue | 158,000 | 153,000 |
| Total contribution | 29,300 | 24,300 |
The revised Retargeting contribution is $45,000 − $27,500 − $10,000 = $7,500, and its ROAS falls from 5.00 to $45,000 / $10,000 = 4.50. The total contribution declines by the same $5,000, while total ROAS becomes $153,000 / $40,000 = 3.825, displayed as 3.83. A fixed cutoff and a revision note explain why last month's result changed.
An executive dashboard can summarize the reconciled commercial result, while the campaign review retains attribution assumptions and order detail.
Bring a sample of your own campaign spending and matched order files, or a Google Sheet with campaign IDs, revenue and costs. Covirage maps the columns, and its tools compute and check the figures; the external AI model explains the differences with every figure traced to its rows. Create a free Covirage account, then set up your business and bring your exports.
See revenue driver analysis for the supporting approach to explaining commercial performance.
Start with spending, clicks, attributed orders, net attributed revenue and return on ad spend. Add product costs and contribution after media spending when available. Keep reach and engagement in a supporting section when they help explain performance against the campaign's stated objective.
No. Return on ad spend divides attributed revenue by advertising spending. It leaves out product costs and other business expenses. A campaign can generate substantial revenue while contributing little after merchandise costs, delivery costs and advertising spending are considered.
Attribution rules, reporting windows, refunds and unmatched orders can all create differences. Several campaign reports may claim credit for the same order. Reconcile through unique order identifiers and document the revenue assigned to campaigns, left unattributed or excluded from the review.