The problem

When we onboarded Livemore Mortgages, their campaigns were generating leads at an average cost per lead of £40.17. The account structure also made it difficult to tailor the strategy to their different customer segments, particularly people in their 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, who each need a different conversation.

What we did

We restructured the account around each target age group, with its own keyword strategy, messaging and landing page for every ICP. We improved search term relevance, tightened keyword targeting, added negative keywords, and sent each audience to the landing page that best matched its needs and stage of life.

The result

Following the restructure, cost per lead dropped to £21.26, a reduction of around 47%. Since we started working together, Livemore Mortgages has generated over 2,400 leads at an average cost per lead of £27.60, still around 31% lower than when we took over the account.

Evidence and limitations

Figures are Kannon's reporting from the client's advertising account. No account screenshot is published for this case. The engagement is ongoing, so the average cost per lead covers the whole period rather than a fixed window, and the client did not run a formal qualification standard during it, so these are leads rather than qualified enquiries as defined elsewhere on this site.

The problem

Nicholson Jones Sutton is a UK law firm specialising in housing disrepair disputes between tenants and landlords. They had built a good client base through word of mouth, but had not yet used paid media to generate leads at scale. Their website covered too many topics to collect leads from specific campaigns.

What we did

• District-targeted Google Ads campaigns.
• A dedicated landing page with three conversion actions and one goal: the enquiry.
• Lead capture plugged into their CRM.
• An instant email alert to the sales team for every new lead.

The result

Traffic from targeted districts landed on a page built for one job, and roughly one in three visitors became an enquiry. In total we generated over 400 qualified leads at around £20 per lead.

Evidence and limitations

The 33.85% conversion rate comes from a 65-click window in the client's account in January 2022: 22 conversions at £20.90 each. It is the landing page's rate in that period, not the rate across all 400+ leads. "Qualified" here means the firm's intake accepted the enquiry; they did not run a written qualification standard, so the criteria are not documented. The account screenshot above is the evidence for that window. The landing page shown is the client's own, run under their repairs4tenants brand; its compensation figures are their marketing and are not repeated or endorsed here.

The problem

Island Equity Systems is a personal investment system created by a former S&P 500 company CFO with over 40 years of experience. The proposition was strong, but it was struggling to get people interested in signing up, and the website had not been designed around one concrete conversion action.

What we did

• Dedicated landing pages built in Unbounce and integrated with Google Ads.
• Google Search and Display campaigns reaching people looking for financial advice.
• A series of webinars explaining how the system works to first-timers.
• Email sequences to nurture leads further down the funnel.

The result

Over the life of the account we generated 599 leads at an average of $21.29 each. As the funnel matured, performance kept improving: in December 2021 the conversion rate reached 13.33%, with leads costing $15.20.

Evidence and limitations

Figures come from the client's advertising account over the engagement. Leads are form sign-ups for the system; the client did not operate a separate qualification standard, so these are not qualified enquiries as defined elsewhere on this site. The client's own return claims are their financial promotion and are not repeated or endorsed here. A screenshot of their landing page is held but not published, because its headline is that promotion.

The problem

5IRE is a fifth-generation blockchain technology built to help accelerate the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A key marketing goal was to gain visibility across channels and keep people engaged with technology updates, research updates and its podcast.

What we did

Campaigns split by content type: technology updates, research updates, the podcast and dedicated video ads. Targeting was layered by funnel stage, starting with placements on 50 researched similar channels, then custom intent audiences and similar audiences, then retargeting once the audience had grown.

The result

6,000 new subscribers at $1.61 each, with cost per view held at $0.02, 66% below expectations.

Evidence and limitations

This was an awareness engagement, so the metrics are subscribers, views and cost per view, not enquiries or sales. The December 2021 account screenshot evidences the views, impressions and cost per view. The exact window over which the 6,000 subscribers accumulated is still being confirmed, so it is reported without a date range.

The problem

When we started with TurboFileService, their Meta Ads account held limited conversion data and there was no clear view of which European markets offered the strongest growth. The job was to find the right audiences, generate leads worth having, and turn those prospects into paying customers for a €99 monthly service.

What we did

• Campaigns across five European markets, compared on lead cost, lead quality and website registrations.
• Budget concentrated on the three that performed: the UK, France and Poland.
• Structured creative testing across personas, messaging angles and formats.
• A gradual shift from Meta lead forms to website registrations, to optimise closer to revenue.

The result

Within three months the client reported an additional €10,000 in monthly recurring revenue, or €120,000 annualised. Across the reported campaigns we generated 822 leads at €9.46 each and 42 website registrations at €51.11 each.

The gap between those two costs is the point of the engagement. A €9.46 lead form submission and a €51.11 registration are not the same thing, and only the second was close enough to revenue to steer the budget by.

Evidence and limitations

The revenue figure is the client's own report of their recurring revenue, not a number measured inside the ad account, and Kannon has not audited their billing. Lead and registration costs come from Kannon's reporting on the campaigns named above, not from every campaign in the account. No written qualification standard was in place, so these are sign-ups rather than qualified enquiries as defined elsewhere on this site, and the exact three-month window is not documented.

The problem

Braingood's Google Ads account was returning 1.74 on ad spend, with campaigns that struggled to turn traffic into consistent sales. The account had no clear structure, conversion tracking was not aligned with revenue, and Performance Max made it hard to see which audiences and search terms were actually driving purchases.

What we did

• Fixed conversion tracking first, so purchases and subscriptions counted ahead of lower-value actions.
• Reorganised the account around high-intent Search, Brand and Retargeting campaigns.
• Reduced reliance on the Performance Max campaigns that were hiding the detail.
• Tightened keyword targeting and ad messaging towards stronger purchase intent, and aligned the ads with the subscription offer.

The result

Two weeks after the strategy went live, return on ad spend had moved from 1.74 to 4.50, an improvement of around 159%.

Evidence and limitations

Two weeks is a short window, and a short window flatters a change. Conversion tracking was corrected as part of the work, so the before and after figures were not measured under identical tracking: part of the improvement is better campaign structure, part of it is the account finally counting the right thing. The 1.74 and 4.50 are the account's reported return on ad spend, not a margin figure, and they are not audited against the client's own sales data. This page will carry the three-month figure once the full plan has run.

The problem

BellaChu had never run Meta Ads. We started with a new ad account, no historical conversion data and no proven audiences or creative. The job was to build awareness for a young fashion accessories brand in the US while generating sales and working out an acquisition strategy from nothing.

What we did

• A phased strategy: awareness and sales campaigns first, targeting women aged 35 to 55 in the US.
• Tested audiences, creative formats, messaging angles and offers around the brand's affordable luxury positioning.
• Added retargeting once the account had data to retarget with.
• Moved budget towards the creative and the sales campaigns that were working.

The result

The first sales arrived within a couple of days of the first ad going live. By the second month the account had reached break-even on ad spend, while still building the conversion data and the winning creative that profitable scaling needs.

Evidence and limitations

Break-even means the ad spend paid for itself on the measured return, not that the brand was profitable after all its other costs. We publish no spend, revenue or return figure for this engagement because none has been confirmed against the client's own sales data. This is an early-stage case, included because a cold start is an honest picture of what the first two months cost in data and patience, not because it is a headline result.