Paid Media Report · EcoView Windows DFW

$75,531

Revenue closed

4 sales · CRM

Booked appointments

20% of CRM leads

186

Leads in the CRM

of 352 platform leads

$1,169

Cost / appointment

blended, both channels

The scorecard is booked appointments and closed revenue, not cost per lead. 186 leads registered in MarketSharp under the Nativz sources and produced 38 booked appointments; 4 have already closed for $75,531, 13 appointments are still open, and 21 closed out without a sale. Google also books by phone and those calls still log outside the tracked source, which means the CRM count understates Google. Per-platform detail follows.

The story

The window in three moves.

We lead with the result, then show how the campaigns and creative produced it.

Meta is the engine

Meta forms produced 116 CRM leads and 33 of the 38 booked appointments, a 28% set rate at $60 a lead.

62%

Two creatives carry Meta

"06/22 - EV_Ad Creative_v3 (DFW Bes" and the Before and After cut drove 168 of 272 leads. Strong, and worth widening so results do not lean on two assets.

$6,568

Search is the headroom

Search spent $6,568 for 11 conversions while PMax delivered 69 at $310. Reworking Search is the clearest gain available.

Meta Ads

Where the leads came from.

Daily volume and cost, then the campaigns and creative behind it. Every campaign below is a lead-form campaign, so cost per lead is directly comparable across them.

Leads & spend per day

Leads Daily spend

Window total 272 leadsShaded band = latest 7 days

Campaign	Spend	Leads	Cost / lead	CTR	CPC
NZ 01 - DFW Best Performers Form	$4,159	82	$51	2.32%	$2.42
NZ 01 - Austin Best Performers Form	$4,353	78	$56	2.19%	$2.41
NZ 01 - DFW Form Best CPL	$3,271	78	$42	2.51%	$1.64
NZ 01 - Waco/Temple Form	$3,402	28	$122	2.04%	$2.41
NZ 01 - Austin Form	$1,259	6	$210	2.17%	$2.44
Blended lead total	$16,444	272	$60	-	-

Who is responding

The audience that actually converts.

Every lead Meta delivered, broken out by the age, gender and platform of the person who filled the form. This is reported by Meta on the lead itself, so it covers all 272 leads rather than a sample.

Leads by age

25-34 $83 per lead · 4% of spend

35-44 $37 per lead · 10% of spend

45-54 $49 per lead · 19% of spend

55-64 $69 per lead · 28% of spend

65+ $72 per lead · 39% of spend

Age	Spend	% of spend	Leads	% of leads	Cost / lead	CTR
25-34	$584	4%	7	3%	$83	2.24%
35-44 Best CPL	$1,677	10%	45	17%	$37	1.94%
45-54	$3,152	19%	64	24%	$49	1.9%
55-64	$4,650	28%	67	25%	$69	2.13%
65+	$6,380	39%	89	33%	$72	2.89%
Total	$16,443	100%	272	100%	$60	-

Cheapest lead is not the same as cheapest sale, and here that distinction decides the answer. The 35-44 bracket returns leads at $37 against $72 on 65+, so on cost per lead alone it looks underfunded. EcoView's own sales history says the opposite: buyers are overwhelmingly 45 to 65, and under-40 homeowners are usually in a starter home and rarely purchase. So we are not moving budget toward the cheaper bracket. What this table actually establishes is that we are currently measuring age against cost per lead, which is the wrong denominator. The open question is what each bracket does after the appointment, and that needs close rate by age from the CRM. Until we have it, targeting stays where it is.

By gender

Gender	Spend	Leads	Cost / lead
Male	$8,296	144	$58
Female	$8,017	126	$64

By platform

Platform	Spend	Leads	Cost / lead
Facebook	$14,132	225	$63
Instagram	$2,303	47	$49

Instagram is the cheaper placement and the smaller one. It produced 47 leads at $49 against Facebook's 225 at $63, on 14% of the spend. Men and women convert at a similar cost ($58 and $64), so there is no case for skewing the targeting by gender. The 25-34 bracket is left out of these conclusions: 7 leads is too small a base to read.

Campaign split

Where the budget worked.

Spend and conversions by campaign, split by campaign type. Performance Max and Search behave very differently in this account, and the split is where the story is.

$310

PMax cost / conv.

$21,422 · 69 conv

$597

Search cost / conv.

$6,568 · 11 conv

$1.55

PMax cost / click

vs $19.37 on Search

Active campaigns

Search + PMax

NZ - PMax - DFW 26 conv · $281 CPA

$7,318

NZ - PMax - Austin 22 conv · $312 CPA

$6,866

NZ - Search - DFW 9 conv · $481 CPA

$4,326

NZ - PMax - Waco/Temple 12 conv · $318 CPA

$3,821

NZ - PMax - DFW - Window Insta 6 conv · $324 CPA

$1,944

NZ - Search - Austin 2 conv · $826 CPA

$1,651

NZ - PMax - Austin - Window In 3 conv · $491 CPA

$1,473

NZ - Search - Waco/Temple 0 conv · no conv. yet

$591

Campaign	Status	Spend	Conv.	Cost / conv.	CTR
NZ - PMax - DFW	Active	$7,318	26	$281	3.61%
NZ - PMax - Austin	Active	$6,866	22	$312	3.42%
NZ - Search - DFW	Active	$4,326	9	$481	3.23%
NZ - PMax - Waco/Temple	Active	$3,821	12	$318	2.75%
NZ - PMax - DFW - Window Installation	Paused	$1,944	6	$324	3.43%
NZ - Search - Austin	Active	$1,651	2	$826	2.9%
NZ - PMax - Austin - Window Installation	Paused	$1,473	3	$491	4.32%
NZ - Search - Waco/Temple	Active	$591	0	n/a	4.59%
Total		$27,990	80	$350	-

Conversion action	What it measures	Conv.	Share
NZ - Landing Page Lead	a form completed on the landing page	45	56%
Calls from ads	a call placed straight from the ad	19	24%
NZ - Lead	a form completed on the main site	11	14%
First Time Phone Call	a first-time caller, not a repeat	5	6%
Total		80	100%

All 80 are real lead actions. 56 are form completions and 24 are phone calls. Nothing here is a soft signal such as a directions tap or a page view, so the cost per conversion above is the real cost of a lead.

The pipeline

From leads to closed business.

Platform leads are only the start. This is what happened next inside EcoView's CRM over the same window: which leads registered, how many became a booked sales appointment, and what has closed so far. Meta lead forms land in MarketSharp fully tracked. The landing-page path is newer. Google's phone bookings still log outside the tracked source, so Google is under-represented here.

Meta · Facebook / Instagram lead forms

Leads in CRM

116

Registered inquiries

Meta lead forms that landed in MarketSharp under the "Nativz Marketing" source during the window.

Booked

33 28% set

Sales appointments set

Real sales presentations booked off those leads. This is the strongest set rate in the account and the reason Meta holds the largest share of budget.

Closed

4 $75,531

Sales won so far

Four deals closed at an average of $18,883. Of the 38 appointments, 20 came back No Sale and 1 did not reach a quote, so 13 are still open. A 4-in-25 close rate on dispositioned appointments is the honest read.

Landing page · Google and direct traffic

Leads in CRM

Landing-page forms

Forms registered under the "Nativz LP" source. This is the path Google Search and PMax send traffic to.

Booked

5 7% set

Appointments set

Seventy leads produced five appointments, against 28% on Meta. We have not established why. Known contributors on this path: a share of the Google-driven inquiries are installers asking to buy windows outright, which are not addressable customers. A lead-by-lead review would tell us how much of the gap that explains.

Phone · CallRail

69 36 over 60s

Calls driven by Google

CallRail tracked 73 calls in the window, 69 of them attributed to Google. Any appointment booked on those calls logs under a phone source in the CRM, so it sits outside the 38 above.

Read the $1,169 cost per appointment with that gap in mind. It divides all $44,434 of media by only the 38 appointments we can currently trace to a Nativz source. Google's phone-booked appointments are real but land outside that count, so the true cost per appointment is lower than the figure shown. CallRail shows 69 Google-driven calls in the same window, so the gap is real and sizeable.

CallRail · the phone channel

The calls Google Ads does not count.

Google Ads reported 19 calls this window, because it only counts a call placed directly from the ad. CallRail tracks the phone number on the site too. Over the same period it recorded 61 calls driven by the paid campaigns, plus another 8 from the Google Business Profile listings.

Tracked calls

All sources

Every call CallRail tracked in the window, across paid, direct, organic and the Google Business Profile listings.

From Google

69 95% of calls

Paid and profile

32 came from the call asset on the ads and 29 from the website number after an ad click, so 61 are paid. The other 8 came from the Google Business Profile listings, which are organic.

Substantive

36 over 60 seconds

Real conversations

Of the Google calls, 36 ran longer than a minute and 59 were first-time callers, not repeat contacts.

Campaign that drove the call	Calls
NZ - Pmax - Homepage - All Locations DFW	12
NZ - Search - DFW	10
NZ - Pmax - Homepage - Austin	10
NZ - PMax - DFW	8
NZ - PMax - Austin	5
NZ - PMax - Waco/Temple	4
NZ - Search - Austin	1
Total matched to a campaign	50

What this does and does not tell us. CallRail proves the phone volume and which campaign produced it, which is why the Google section understates the channel: 61 paid calls against the 19 Google Ads counts. What it cannot tell us yet is how many of those calls became a booked appointment, because the disposition field is not being filled in on the calls. Connecting CallRail to the CRM booking is the single change that would close the last gap in this report.

What's next

Where we take it from here.

Each move ties back to something this window proved.

Primary move

Move the Search budget to where it converts.

Search spent $6,568 for 11 conversions at $19.37 a click. Performance Max spent $21,422 for 69 conversions at $1.55 a click. We rebuild Search around the terms that actually convert and shift the rest into PMax and Meta, where the same money is already producing appointments.

What we do: Tighten Search to converting terms, move the balance to PMax and Meta.
Evidence: $310 per conversion on PMax vs $597 on Search.
Risk: Search still catches high-intent demand; we cut in steps, not all at once.
We need: Your read on lead quality by channel.

Operating plan

The next window.

Build variations of the two winning Meta creatives so 62% of leads stop depending on two assets.
Scale DFW Form, the best segment at $42 a lead, and hold Austin Form until its cost comes down.
Fill in call dispositions in CallRail so the 69 Google calls can be tied to booked appointments and Google stops being undercounted in this report.
Get close rate by age from the CRM so we can judge each bracket on sales, not on cost per lead. EcoView has offered to append demographics to the customer list, which would settle it.
Review the landing-page leads one by one - 70 leads produced 5 appointments and we want to know what those leads actually were before changing anything.

$75,531 closed, with 13 appointments still open.

The window in three moves.

Meta is the engine

Two creatives carry Meta

Search is the headroom

Where the leads came from.

Leads & spend per day

The 3 best-performing ads

06/22 - EV_Ad Creative_v3 (DFW Best Performers)

04/03 - EV_Before and After_v1 - Copy

01/15 - [Ex. Post] - Quiet installs, clean lines (Best Performers)

The audience that actually converts.

Leads by age

By gender

By platform

Conversions over the window.

Conversions & spend per day

Where the budget worked.

From leads to closed business.

Registered inquiries

Sales appointments set

Sales won so far

Landing-page forms

Appointments set

Calls driven by Google

The calls Google Ads does not count.

All sources

Paid and profile

Real conversations

Where we take it from here.

Move the Search budget to where it converts.

The next window.

Now we scale it.