Case Study 07 · The Ledger
Chef-led landmark restaurant · Dublin city centre · name withheld · 18-month engagement
Investment in, return out. Every assumption stated.
The financial case set out as a ledger rather than a headline: what was spent, what came back, where the break-even sits, and which figure we use when two are defensible.
43×
Return on retainer
Conservative attribution basis, roughly half the market gap
Source · OpenTable
12
Covers a month to break even
At the venue's own average spend per cover
Source · OpenTable
521
Attributed covers a month
Conservative basis over the engagement
Source · OpenTable
In brief
- The lower of two defensible figures is the one published.
- Break-even is stated in covers, not in percentages.
- Walk-ins, phone bookings and brand-driven demand are excluded.
The situation
Two attribution bases were defensible for the same engagement. The question was which figure to publish and how to make the arithmetic checkable rather than something to be taken on trust.
What the period showed
The financial case is presented as inputs and exclusions rather than a headline multiple. Change the average spend per cover or the share attributed to digital and the result changes with it.
The Method
Two figures were defensible. We publish the lower one.
A return multiple is only as honest as the attribution behind it. Two figures could be argued for this engagement: a full-attribution number that credits digital work with the entire cover gap against the market, and a conservative number that credits it with roughly half.
We publish the conservative figure. Not because the higher one is impossible, but because it is not provable — a restaurant's kitchen, service, press and reputation all move the same numbers, and no attribution model can cleanly separate them.
Every input below is stated so the arithmetic can be checked rather than trusted. Average spend per cover is an operator-supplied figure, and the revenue total moves proportionally with it.
The Ledger
Debit column. Credit column.
Debit
The investment
Fixed
Monthly retainer
A flat monthly retainer over the engagement. No media spend, no commission on covers, no performance uplift — the same fee whether the month was strong or quiet.
Credit
Attributed revenue
~€312,600
Conservative basis
Derived from attributed covers at the venue's own average spend per cover. Covers claimed represent roughly half of the gap between the venue and its benchmark cohort.
Break-even
What the retainer needed to earn
12
Additional covers per month
At the venue's average spend, twelve additional covers a month cover the retainer entirely. Everything above that line is return.
- Break-even requirement: 12 covers a month
- Attributed actual: 521 covers a month
- Resulting multiple: 43× on the conservative basis
Stated Assumptions
What the number rests on. And what it excludes.
| Input | Basis | Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Average spend per cover | Operator-supplied | Applied unchanged, not estimated upward |
| Attributed covers | Half of the gap versus benchmark | Remaining half credited to the restaurant |
| Walk-ins and phone bookings | Not platform-recorded | Excluded entirely |
| Brand and press-driven demand | Not separable | Excluded from the claim |
| Retainer | Flat monthly fee | Counted in full for every month |
Change any input below and the multiple changes with it. Nothing here is a guarantee of a comparable result.
We use the conservative figure because it is defensible, not because it is flattering. The full-attribution number is higher and we do not publish it.
Source · Attribution basis · 18-month engagement
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
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.