We tested two approaches side by side. One brought four times the leads.

The situation

A land clearing crew working a rural four-state corner. Demand out there is real but thin, and thin demand punishes the wrong approach hard: an automated one never gathers enough information to learn from, so it spends the budget guessing.

What we built

The website first, then the campaign pointed at it, so the ads and the pages make the same promise in the same words. We also fixed a consent setup that had been throwing away the source of a large share of visits. Without that fix none of these numbers would be worth quoting.

An automated campaign was already running when we arrived. Rather than argue about it, we let both run through the same ninety days and compared what came out.

Where it landed

Twelve leads from the campaign we built. Three from the one it replaced, over the same period. Nine of our twelve arrived as form submissions and three as phone calls.

We stopped the one that lost and moved the budget behind the one that worked. That is why we ran both instead of picking one and hoping.

What we would do next

The ads are matching what people actually search for, and close to half the available demand still sits above the current budget. Spend follows demand here, not the other way around.

Campaign by campaign