Skip to content
Case study · E-commerce and retail

Sporting goods e-commerce: a WhatsApp sales agent and ad attribution that finally matches the cash register

KINTO fixed the weak link of an e-commerce brand that sells over WhatsApp with a multi-model audited agent and order-by-order reconciliation; the owner reported a month with channel sales ≈30% above their history.

By KINTO · Published

Figures, each with its source

  • 100% of the window (hundreds of orders)

    orders reconciled with their real source

    Measured

  • one channel returned ≈2× the other

    return per channel measured against the same cash

    Measured

  • ≈9–10% of conversations

    agent conversion in its first weeks

    Measured

  • ≈+30% vs. history

    channel sales in the first full month

    Client-reported

Ranges or orders of magnitude where a figure could identify the client, each with its source.

How the transformation unfolded From the problem to what changed, in the five steps every KINTO case follows.
  1. Problem

    A brand with complex variants (model × size × color × stock) sells on the web and mostly over WhatsApp.

  2. Signals

    Four signals: market, business, user experience and support.

  3. How we understood it

    We audited hundreds of conversations with AI demand extraction, a second model as judge and deterministic computation; checked each automated-judge alert by hand; and matched every store order to its analytics session, measuring real ad API consumption.

  4. What we built

    A WhatsApp sales agent with live stock and a curated spec sheet, a commercial intelligence tab, an ad governor that changes things only under an approved plan, and store-wide SEO.

  5. Transformation

    In its first weeks the agent closed about two dozen orders at roughly 10% conversion, and the owner reported channel sales ≈30% above their history.

Before and after, by dimension Editorial levels from 0 to 4 read from the text of this case, never a figure drawn to scale.
  • Chat quality

    Before

    Slow, wrong sizes (level 1 of 4)

    After

    Live stock, curated specs (level 3 of 4)

  • Ad attribution

    Before

    Platform claims, unchecked (level 1 of 4)

    After

    Matched order by order (level 4 of 4)

  • Quality control

    Before

    Bugs the team reports (level 1 of 4)

    After

    Audit cycle, human-verified (level 3 of 4)

  • Budget decisions

    Before

    Platform attribution (level 1 of 4)

    After

    Cash data (level 4 of 4)

The four signals we read What the market, the business, the user experience and support were saying before KINTO built anything.
  • Market

    Recurring demand for flagship models and unmet demand for some lines (sold-out sizes and colors), visible only by reading conversations.

  • Business

    Over a third of orders closed in chat, mostly cash on delivery; a “drop” that worried the team was just a return to normal after a one-off spike.

  • User experience

    Customers ask about sizing, photos by color, financing, payment links and delivery times that change by city and holiday.

  • Support

    One in eight conversations asked for a human, and the staff corrected the bot by hand.

How findings were verified
  1. Audit conversations Hundreds, demand extracted
  2. Second model as judge Plus deterministic computation
  3. Human check Each alert verified by hand
  4. Reconcile with cash Every order matched to its source

Connections

  • Audit conversations → Second model as judge
  • Second model as judge → Human check
  • Human check → Reconcile with cash

KINTO fixed the weak link of an e-commerce brand that sells over WhatsApp with a multi-model audited agent and order-by-order reconciliation; the owner reported a month with channel sales ≈30% above their history.

Problem

A brand with complex variants (model × size × color × stock) sells on the web and mostly over WhatsApp. In the owner’s words, order automation was very good but chat was the weak point: slow replies, wrong sizes, out-of-stock items sold and orders that never reached the store. And nobody knew how much of what the ad platforms claimed was true.

Signals

  • Market: Recurring demand for flagship models and unmet demand for some lines (sold-out sizes and colors), visible only by reading conversations.
  • Business: Over a third of orders closed in chat, mostly cash on delivery; a “drop” that worried the team was just a return to normal after a one-off spike.
  • User experience: Customers ask about sizing, photos by color, financing, payment links and delivery times that change by city and holiday.
  • Support: One in eight conversations asked for a human, and the staff corrected the bot by hand.

How we understood it

  • Business audit over hundreds of conversations: AI demand extraction, quality judged by a different model, and deterministic computation. Core finding: the bottleneck was not the agent’s conversion but that most conversations left no data behind.
  • Multi-model quality audit: the automated judge overstated, so every finding was verified by hand. Specific lost sales from wrong sizes were found.
  • Audit of team feedback: months of chat with the client turned into a list of commitments; the costliest debts were our own unfulfilled promises, not bugs.
  • Instrumented attribution: real ad API consumption was measured (to operate without exceeding its limits) and each order was matched to its analytics session.

What we built and why

  • WhatsApp sales agent that advises by size, sends photos by color, quotes shipping to any municipality, creates the order in the store and notifies the team. Live stock every few minutes with an alarm if it fails, a curated spec sheet (“no spec” rather than invent one), read-only payment checks and a per-chat pause so it coexists with human staff.
  • Intelligence tab for the sales team: best sellers, most asked-about items, true stock-outs vs. bot errors, and suggested restocking.
  • Ad governor: a quota control that keeps requests within each platform’s limits, with an audit trail and changes only under a plan a person approved; real return per channel (Meta and Google against the same cash) and automatic source tagging of each order.
  • Store-wide SEO: unique metadata and descriptions, alt text for hundreds of images, and content for uncovered high-intent searches.

Why this way: The automated judge overstated: only one in five “high” alerts was a real error, so no finding was accepted without human verification. And the budget now moves on cash data, not each platform’s attribution.

Transformation

  • In its first weeks the agent closed about two dozen orders at close to 10% conversion. At the end of the first full month the owner reported channel sales about 30% above their history (the client’s statement, not an independent measurement).

  • Reconciliation matched 100% of the window’s orders to their real source and showed one ad channel returning about twice the other: budget now moves on cash data.

  • Quality moved from “bugs the team reports” to a multi-model audit cycle, with half of the feedback closed with evidence.

  • orders reconciled with their real source: 100% of the window (hundreds of orders) (measured)

  • return per channel measured against the same cash: one channel returned ≈2× the other (measured)

  • agent conversion in its first weeks: ≈9–10% of conversations (measured)

  • channel sales in the first full month: ≈+30% vs. history (client-reported)

What we don’t know yet

  • Ad-spend savings in absolute terms, and the agent’s effect isolated from seasonality.
  • Still open: unifying product codes between the ERP and the store, and notifying customers when a sold-out item is restocked.
Case studies

Related case studies

Have a problem like this?

Tell KINTO what is going on. The first conversation is to understand it, not to sell.