Loading
Because the traffic is seasonal and the outcome is months later. A course page's sessions in the admissions window tell you almost nothing about whether it produced students, and comparing this month to last month is meaningless when demand is term-shaped.
So pages are judged on volume, and the ones producing enquiries that convert are indistinguishable from the ones producing browsers.
Each course page has its own record and its own search performance, compared year on year against the equivalent window rather than against the previous month.
Source tracking carries the page through to the applicant in Flow and to the enrolment, so a page is judged on students rather than on sessions.
It does not manage prospectuses or open-day booking, and it will not fix a programme nobody wants.
And it needs the enrolment recorded to close the loop. Where admissions happen outside Treepie, the join comes through the API.
Keyword clusters map to programmes, so pages compete with the right terms rather than with each other — cannibalisation between similar courses is a common and expensive failure here.
Content gaps show which programmes have no page answering what applicants actually search for.
Products, not integrations. Each one reads the same record, so a join is a permission rather than a sync job with a mapping screen behind it.
Yes, against the equivalent seasonal window rather than the previous month.
Yes, where the applicant and enrolment are recorded in Flow.
Yes, cannibalisation between similar programmes is a common finding.
Half an hour on your own numbers is usually enough to say whether Growth is the right place to start.