Case Study 03 · The Attribution Story
Premium steakhouse group · Dublin 2 · name withheld
What we claim. What we don't.
Most agency case studies claim everything. This one explicitly states what digital contributed — and what the restaurant's team, product, and brand earned on their own. The honest position still produces a 37× return.
€184,940
Directly traced booking revenue
3,699 network covers × €50 average spend
Source · OpenTable
20pt
Gap versus local market
Venue +7% covers, Dublin 2 market −13%
Source · OpenTable
~50%
Share attributed to digital
Stated position, not a measured total
Source · OpenTable
In brief
- €184,940 is traced from 3,699 platform-confirmed network covers.
- The venue grew 7% while the local market fell 13% — a 20-point gap.
- Search and booking data are kept as separate, parallel evidence.
The situation
The venue grew covers while the surrounding market declined. The question was how much of that gap could honestly be traced to digital work rather than claimed wholesale.
What the period showed
A three-tier model states what is platform-confirmed, what is reasonably inferred, and what is explicitly not claimed. Google visibility data and OpenTable booking data are presented as separate, parallel evidence.
The Problem
Every agency claims 100% of the upside.
Restaurant covers go up. The agency points to their work. No one mentions that the market also recovered, the head chef improved, the owner refurbished the dining room, or that a food critic happened to visit.
This city-centre steakhouse grew covers by 7% while the local city-centre market fell 13%. That 20-point gap is real and verifiable from the venue's own OpenTable account. The question is: how much of it belongs to digital marketing specifically, and how much belongs to everything else?
The easy answer is to claim all of it. The honest answer requires a three-tier model: what we can directly trace from a digital source to a booking, what we can reasonably infer was influenced by digital visibility, and what we explicitly do not claim.
The Attribution Model
Three tiers. Three levels of certainty.
Tier 01 · Confirmed
Directly traced digital bookings
€184,940
Verified revenue
The OpenTable Network channel provides a platform-verified link between a digital touchpoint and a confirmed reservation. Every booking in this channel is traceable to a digital discovery event — no inference required.
- 3,699 confirmed covers via OpenTable Network discovery
- Methodology: 3,699 covers × €50 average spend = €184,940
- This channel did not exist at meaningful scale before the engagement
Tier 02 · Probable
Reasonably inferred digital influence
~€105K
Estimated revenue
These channels cannot be individually traced to a booking but are directly connected to infrastructure we built. We apply a conservative conversion assumption to infrastructure metrics to produce these estimates.
- GBP direction requests: 357K profile views · ~1,400 incremental covers
- Map pack positions: top-3 on 4 high-intent terms · ~700 covers
- Direct GBP calls: phone bookings · ~600 covers
Tier 03 · Not Claimed
Explicitly outside digital attribution
Not ours
Restaurant earned this
The restaurant grew 7% while the market fell 13%. A restaurant of this quality would have outperformed a declining market by some margin regardless. That margin belongs to the kitchen, the floor team, the brand heritage, the wine list.
- Brand recognition effect: a named brand with existing pull
- Product quality driving cover retention and repeat visitation
- Organic market recovery independent of digital work
The Confirmed Funnel
The digital path we can actually trace.
GBP Impressions
357K
Full year tracked
Searches where the venue appeared in Google results or Maps.
Profile Actions
62.5K
+YoY growth
Clicks to website, direction requests, calls, reservation taps.
OT Network Covers
3,699
Verified by platform
Confirmed reservations from diners who discovered the venue through OpenTable.
Verified Revenue
€184,940
Tier 1 only
3,699 covers × €50 average spend — platform-confirmed, no modelling.
Confidentiality and attribution
The venue in this case study is an established, well-regarded restaurant working with us under a confidentiality agreement, so it is described by market position rather than by name. Every figure is taken from the client's own third-party platform data.
Search, local profile and booking-platform figures are recorded by separate systems and are presented here as parallel indicators over the same period. Where a movement is not directly traceable to a single guest journey, it is described as correlation and commercial context rather than proven causation.
Strategy & analysis by Alex Opsenica, Moolah Media
The method behind this engagement
Next case study
How a restaurant search actually becomes a booking.Keep reading
Other case studies from the same engagements.
Chef-led landmark restaurant · Dublin city centre · name withheld
Entering an occupied market and ranking ahead of it.
From no non-branded visibility to a #7 Maps Pack position on Dublin's most contested restaurant discovery term.
View case studyPremium steakhouse group · Dublin 2 · name withheld
Building local search infrastructure from the ground up.
Fifteen months of local search infrastructure: Domain Authority 33 to 47, linking domains 104 to 197, 83% map pack coverage.
View case studyChef-led landmark restaurant · Dublin city centre · name withheld
When the local market fell, this restaurant grew covers.
Covers grew 33% year on year while a 75-venue OpenTable benchmark for the same area fell 9% — a 42 percentage-point spread.
View case studyFree Restaurant Visibility Audit
What could better visibility mean for your restaurant?
Results shown are historical examples from specific restaurant engagements. Outcomes vary by market, competition, starting position and implementation.