The CMO’s Quarterly UGC Report Template

Why the board should care at all. Public research gives the context, not your result: the Medill Spiegel Research Center found that purchase likelihood for a product with five reviews was 270% greater than for one with none, and that the effect was larger for higher-priced products (380%) than lower-priced ones (190%). Use that on slide 1 only as framing. Your own test is what belongs in the headline.

The 8-slide structure

Each slide answers one question a board member will have. If a slide cannot answer its question with this quarter's data, keep the slide and say so; an empty cell with a reason is more credible than a filler metric.

If you run Idukki, most of these slides map to existing reports: tested lift comes from A/B testing with confidence intervals per variant, the ledger and surfaces from Analytics (revenue filterable by widget, variant, creator and source), and the rights slide from the rights ledger, which flags assets approaching expiry. CSV export is on every plan, so the numbers can go into your own deck template rather than a vendor screenshot.

Speaker notes

The notes below are written to be read nearly verbatim. Replace the braces with your numbers.

1. 1Slide 1. "This quarter, pages with customer content converted {x} points better than the same pages without it, in a controlled test. We can trace {£y} of orders to shoppers who clicked content, and we now hold {n} assets we are cleared to use."
2. 2Slide 2. "This is the number I would defend first. Half the traffic saw the page with UGC, half without, over {weeks}. The interval is {a} to {b}; it does not cross zero." If it did cross zero, say that plainly and say what you will change.
3. 3Slide 3. "Conversion is only useful if basket value holds. RPV moved {x}; AOV moved {y}." A conversion win with falling AOV is a discounting story, not a content story.
4. 4Slide 4. "Attributed means clicked then bought. Influenced means saw or engaged, then bought. We report them side by side and never add them, because the same order can appear in both."
5. 5Slide 5. "Product-page galleries carried {share} of attributed revenue; shoppable video on {page type} is the growth line."
6. 6Slide 6. "Our best-selling content is {type} from {creator tier}. That shapes next quarter's sourcing."
7. 7Slide 7. "{n} assets expire in the next 90 days. We are re-requesting the top performers; the rest will drop off automatically."
8. 8Slide 8. "We want to test {bet}. We will read it by {date}. The ask is {resource}."

A defensible attribution model

A defensible model does not claim more than its method can support. Three tiers give finance a clear hierarchy of confidence, and each one comes from a different mechanism.

Tier 1 in practice. Split product-page traffic between a variant with the UGC widget and a control without it, run for full weeks to cover weekday effects, and read the difference in conversion rate with a confidence interval. The free A/B significance calculator checks a result, and our holdout testing guide covers test design. Idukki's A/B testing shows sequential confidence intervals per variant, so you can see when a result has settled rather than stopping on a lucky day.

Tiers 2 and 3 in practice. Name the model on the slide. In GA4, Google's current attribution models are data-driven, paid and organic last click, and Google paid channels last click; first click, linear, time decay and position-based were deprecated, so do not promise the board a linear model from GA4. Meta's Conversions API connects server-side events to Meta for measurement, which is why paid social will often claim some of the same orders. That overlap is expected; it is the reason tiers 2 and 3 are never added to each other or to other channels' numbers. Idukki anchors order attribution on the Shopify orders webhook rather than on browser pixels alone, and sends the same events to GA4, Meta CAPI and Klaviyo, which keeps the ledger consistent across tools.

Worked example: turning a test into incremental revenue

An illustrative example, not a customer result. A store runs a four-week test on its top 20 product pages with 200,000 sessions, split evenly. Control converts at 2.0%, the variant with a UGC gallery at 2.2%, and the interval on the difference does not cross zero. AOV is £60 in both arms.

Slide 2 shows the test; slide 1 carries the run-rate with the caveat that it assumes the lift holds on untested pages. If the programme costs £2,000 per four weeks, cost per incremental order is £2,000 divided by 400 incremental orders (£24,000 at £60 each), or £5. That is the number to compare with paid acquisition, not attributed revenue divided by cost.

The 12-month view

Quarterly numbers are noisy; the board should also see a rolling year. The 12-month view is a simple table with the same definitions every quarter, so a change in the number reflects the programme rather than a change in method. When a definition must change (a new attribution model, a new test design), restate the prior quarters or mark the break.

For the weeks between board meetings, a lighter weekly signal helps. Idukki can post a weekly digest into Slack covering attributed sales, experiment activity and leads captured (Idukki for Slack), which makes week 11 a collation job rather than an investigation. For the underlying economics, Turn Data Into Dollars builds the full P&L model this report summarises, and how to measure UGC ROI covers the metric definitions in more depth.