for Weston Funding
Paid Social · Jun 9 – Jul 8, 2026

Leads are up 19%, and one video is why.

Weston Funding brought in 32 investor leads in the last 30 days, up from 27, while cost per lead came down. Almost all of that came from a single page-post video: "We funded 100%" produced 28 of the 32 leads at $45.87 each, across four Texas markets. The rest of the budget is still spread across older creative that is not converting, which is exactly where the next gain is.

The numbers ↓ See the winning ad →
Paid Social

More leads, for less each.

Spend rose 12% and leads rose 19%, so every dollar worked a little harder than last month. The lead campaigns run in DFW, Austin, Houston and San Antonio under the financial services ad category, which limits targeting and pushes the cost of reaching an investor up. Even so, cost per lead fell.

Meta account act_1986196824819619 · four Texas markets · lead pixel on westonfunding.com/get-started/
32
Investor leads
▲ 19% vs prior 30 days
$75
Cost per lead
▼ from $90 last period
$2,726
Media spend
▲ 12% vs prior 30 days
3.06%
Click-through rate
Up from 2.84%
Cost per lead is calculated on the four lead campaigns only. Counting the engagement campaign alongside them would show $85, which is not a number anyone manages to: it buys profile visits, not leads.
The story

Three things the numbers say.

Two are wins already banked. The third is the money still on the table.

01
28 of 32 leads

One video is doing the work

The "We funded 100%" page-post video produced 28 of the 32 leads at $45.87 each. It is the same asset running in all four markets, with the city swapped in the copy.

02
81%

The landing page is holding up

81% of the people who click actually reach westonfunding.com/get-started, and 12.2% of those become a lead. For a hard-money lender that is a healthy funnel. Nothing to fix here.

03
$1,121

The clearest opportunity

Thirty-three older ads carried $1,121 of spend and produced 4 leads, at $280 each. That is 47% of the lead budget sitting on creative the audience has stopped responding to.

Meta

Leads and spend, day by day.

Lead flow is lumpy at this budget, which is normal: one or two leads a day, with occasional clusters. Judge the month, not the day.

Leads per day & daily spend

Leads Spend
Window total 32 leadsCost per lead $75Average spend $91/dayBest day 7 leads
i
A note on reading small numbers. At this budget a market produces a handful of leads a month. Austin's 16 leads are enough to trust. DFW and San Antonio landed 5 each and Houston 2, so their cost per lead swings hard on a single conversion and should be read as a direction, not a verdict. We hold judgment on a market until it has cleared roughly ten leads.
The creative

One asset, four markets.

This is a page-post ad, so it runs on the real organic post and keeps its likes, comments and shares. That social proof is part of why it converts. Nothing about it is city-specific except the copy.

We funded 100% video ad #1 $45.87 / lead

6/11 · Page Post Video · "We funded 100%"

28Leads
$45.87Cost / lead
$1,284Spend
88%Of all leads
Watch the ad ▸

The same video, market by market

MarketSpendLeadsCost / leadCTR
Austin Trusted base
$44316$27.692.78%
DFW$1785$35.683.35%
San Antonio$3765$75.183.06%
Houston$2872$143.543.66%
The video, all markets$1,28428$45.873.11%

Austin is the only market with enough leads to draw a conclusion from. Note that Houston has the highest click-through rate of the four and the worst cost per lead, which points at the offer or the landing experience for Houston investors rather than at the ad.

→
The fastest gain available. Alongside the winning video, 33 older ads spent $1,121 and produced 4 leads. That is $280 a lead against the video's $45.87, a difference of more than six times. If that budget performed like the video, the same $1,121 would buy roughly 24 more leads a month. That is arithmetic rather than a promise, but the direction is not in doubt: consolidate behind what is working.
Where the money went

Four markets, and one job each.

The four city campaigns are bought to produce leads. The Instagram campaign is bought to keep the profile warm and the page credible before an investor ever clicks an ad. They are not comparable, so we do not put a cost per lead against the second one.

CampaignWhat it is bought forSpendLeadsCost / leadCTR
NZ 01 · DFWObjective: investor leadsWebsite leads$7306$121.702.43%
NZ 01 · HoustonObjective: investor leadsWebsite leads$7125$142.393.54%
NZ 01 · Austin Best cost per lead
Objective: investor leads		Website leads$50516$31.592.59%
NZ 01 · San AntonioObjective: investor leadsWebsite leads$4575$91.482.87%
NZ 01 · IG Profile VisitsObjective: profile visitsKeeps the page warm and credible$321n/an/a3.36%
Lead campaigns$2,40532$75.162.83%
→
Austin is carrying the account, and it is not a fluke. It produced 16 of the 32 leads on 21% of the lead budget. DFW and Houston together took 60% of the budget for 11 leads. Before moving money out of them, note that the winning video runs cheaply in DFW too, at $35.68 a lead. DFW's problem is not the market, it is that most of its budget sat on older creative.
The other front door

Chat is bringing people in that the form never sees.

The Zoho chat widget on westonfunding.com opened 106 connected chats in this window. That is a second way an investor starts a conversation, and today it is invisible in the campaign numbers.

106
Chats connected
Zoho widget, whole site
109
Click to call
whole site
32
Form leads from Meta
what this report measures
14
Custom events Meta credits to ads
bundled, not separable
i
Why there is no cost per chat here. Meta reports every custom pixel event under a single action type, so the 14 it credits to the ads are chat-connected, chat-closed and click-to-call added together. There is no campaign-level chat number to publish, and we will not invent one. The 106 chats above are the site total across every channel, not a Meta result.
→
This is a settings change worth making. Defining "Chat Connected Zoho" as its own Custom Conversion in Meta separates it from the other pixel events. From that point on it appears per campaign and per ad, we can report a real cost per chat, and Meta can optimize toward it if you want chat volume rather than form fills. It costs nothing in media and takes minutes.
What's next

Where we take it from here.

Each move ties back to a number on this page.

Primary move

Put the budget behind the video that works.

The account already knows what converts. Nearly half of the lead budget is still funding creative that does not. Consolidating is the single change that raises lead volume without raising spend.

What we do
Turn off the 33 legacy ads carrying no leads and move that budget onto the "We funded 100%" video in each market.
Evidence
$1,284 on the video returned 28 leads at $45.87. $1,121 on everything else returned 4, at $280.
Risk
Running one asset harder will eventually tire the audience. Frequency is 2.4 today, which is comfortable, and we will have variants ready before it climbs.
We need
Nothing. This is ours to execute.
Operating plan

The next 30 days.

  • Consolidate onto the winning video in all four markets and retire the legacy ads.
  • Shoot two variants of the same idea before frequency climbs. Same promise, different opening.
  • Give Austin room. It is the only market with a trustworthy base, and it converts at $27.69.
  • Look at Houston's offer, not its ad. It has the best click-through rate and the worst cost per lead.
  • Define "Chat Connected Zoho" as a Custom Conversion so chats become attributable per campaign and can be optimized toward.
  • Leave the Instagram campaign alone. It is bought for profile visits and it is doing that job.
The next chapter

We know what works. Now fund it.

One video is bringing Weston Funding investor leads at $45.87. Nearly half the budget is still going somewhere else. Moving it is the cheapest growth available on this account, and it needs nothing but the decision.

Talk through the plan