logo_click
This campaign brought 1 visits from 1 people. That's down 67% on the previous period. Visitors engaged more than the site average — 100.0% against 61.4% — and stayed 2m 13s on average. No conversions were recorded from this campaign. Traffic is too low to draw firm conclusions — treat these figures as indicative only.
The numbers
Each figure is compared with the same campaign over the previous equivalent period (2026-06-03 – 2026-07-01), so you can see direction, not just size.
How it compares to the rest of the site
The site average is every visit from every source. A campaign performing below it is bringing worse-quality traffic than you'd get anyway.
| Measure | This campaign | Site average | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engaged visits | 100.0% | 61.4% | ▲ 63% |
| Average time | 2m 13s | 3m 46s | ▼ 41% |
| Pages per visit | 3.00 | 2.13 | ▲ 41% |
Visits day by day
Useful for spotting when the campaign actually ran, and whether traffic held up or dropped off after launch.
Where people landed
The first page each visit hit. If engagement is poor here, the landing page is the first thing to look at.
Landing pages
| Landing page | Visits | Engaged | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| / | 1 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Total | 1 | 100.0% |
Pages they went on to view
What people looked at after arriving. A short list means they didn't explore.
| Page | Pages viewed | Visits | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| / | 1 | 1 | 33.3% |
| /deposits/ | 1 | 1 | 33.3% |
| /deposits/personal/ | 1 | 1 | 33.3% |
| Total | 3 | 1 |
Devices
If one device type engages far worse than another, that's usually a layout problem.
| Device | Visits | Engaged | Share |
|---|---|---|---|
| desktop | 1 | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Total | 1 | 100.0% |