Closet Factory — Google Ads Audit
Cross-Market
Comparison Dashboard
Seven markets. One diagnosis. A side-by-side analysis of Virginia Beach, Cleveland, Richmond, Ft. Myers, Chicago, Pittsburgh, and Boston — revealing the systemic patterns that connect them all. One market proves the fix works.
The Big Picture
Seven Markets, One Disease, One Proof of Cure
This started as a conversation about one market. Jeff Bruzzesi in Virginia Beach wanted to know why his Google Ads weren't producing enough leads. A reasonable question from a franchise owner spending $14,000 a month. So we pulled the data. And the data told a story nobody expected.
Virginia Beach was spending 52% of its budget on AI Max Search — a campaign producing leads at $438 each. Meanwhile, Performance Max was delivering leads at $130 each but only getting 32% of the budget. The best campaign was being starved. The worst campaign was being fed.
Then Cleveland's data came in. Same template. Same inversion. PMax at $99 CPL getting 26% of budget. AI Max at $395 CPL getting 60%. Michael's third-party research confirmed what the numbers were already saying.
Richmond made it three for three. Ft. Myers made it four. Then Chicago made it five — with 47.5% of conversions dependent on brand awareness and PMax running 98.5% on branded queries. Pittsburgh made it six — a digital-only market with no TV or radio, where conversions crashed to 5–6 per month when spend shifted in Q4 2025, then surged back when budget was restored. Every market running the corporate template showed the same systemic issues: budget inversion, 100% broad match, bloated conversion tracking, wrong bid strategy, expensive Demand Gen, junk traffic, and AI Max overfunding.
"Then Boston changed the conversation entirely."
Boston is managed by an outside agency, not the corporate template. They give PMax 54% of the budget — the most of any market. They track only 2 conversion actions instead of 26 to 41. They use mixed match types instead of 100% broad. The result: $81 PMax CPL and $123 account CPL. The lowest in the network by a wide margin.
"Boston spends $9,700 a month and generates 78 leads. Virginia Beach spends $13,900 and generates 30. Boston's dollar works 3.7 times harder."
This is not a theory. This is not a projection. Boston is already doing what the other six markets need to do — and the results speak for themselves. The fix is not complicated. The evidence is sitting in the data.
The combined monthly spend across all seven markets is $109,146. The combined monthly leads: 523. The combined CPL: $209. With the systemic fixes applied — the same fixes Boston already has in place — the projection is 920 leads per month at $105 CPL. Nearly doubling the lead volume while cutting the cost in half. Same budget. Different results. Because the foundation gets fixed.
Market Overview
Side-by-Side Snapshot
Virginia Beach
Jan 2025 – Feb 2026 (14 mo)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$464
Cleveland
Nov 2024 – Feb 2025 (~90 days)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$228
Richmond
Jan 2025 – Feb 2026 (14 mo)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$193
Ft. Myers
Jan 2025 – Feb 2026 (14 mo)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$309
Likely inflated
Chicago
Jan 2026 – Feb 2026 (2 mo)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$156
Boston
Jan 2025 – Feb 2026 (14 mo)
Managed by: Outside Agency
Account CPL
$123
Best in Network
Pittsburgh
Jan 2025 – Feb 2026 (14 mo)
Managed by: Corporate
Account CPL
$322
Campaign Performance
Cost Per Lead by Campaign
Performance Max is the hero in every market. In the four corporate markets, AI Max Search and Demand Gen drag CPL up. Boston — managed by an outside agency — proves that giving PMax the majority of budget and keeping tracking clean produces the best results in the network.
- VB
- CLE
- RVA
- FTM
- CHI
- BOS
- PGH
Virginia Beach
PMax
32% budget → 72% conv
$130
CPL
AI Max
52% budget → 34% conv
$438
CPL
Demand Gen
10% budget → 4% conv
$597
CPL
YouTube TV
6% budget → 0% conv
∞
CPL
Cleveland
PMax
26% budget → 61% conv
$99
CPL
AI Max
60% budget → 35% conv
$395
CPL
Demand Gen
14% budget → 4% conv
$694
CPL
Richmond
PMax
36% budget → 41% conv
$169
CPL
AI Max
63% budget → 58% conv
$207
CPL
Demand Gen
2% budget → 1% conv
$421
CPL
Ft. Myers
PMax
41% budget → 45% conv
$280
CPL
AI Max
48% budget → 49% conv
$307
CPL
Demand Gen
11% budget → 6% conv
$528
CPL
Chicago
PMax
3% budget → 19% conv
$25
CPL
AI Max
78% budget → 61% conv
$199
CPL
AI Max WH
19% budget → 20% conv
$149
CPL
Boston
AgencyPMax
54% budget → 82% conv
$81
CPL
Search
34% budget → 14% conv
$310
CPL
Competitor
8% budget → 2% conv
$463
CPL
Branded
2% budget → 1% conv
$208
CPL
Display
2% budget → 1% conv
$341
CPL
Pittsburgh
PMax
30% budget → 40% conv
$242
CPL
AI Max
60% budget → 51% conv
$376
CPL
Demand Gen
10% budget → 9% conv
$378
CPL
The Core Problem
Budget Inversion Analysis
In the five corporate markets, the best-performing campaign receives a smaller share of budget than it deserves. Chicago is the worst offender — PMax gets just 3% of budget despite delivering 19% of conversions. Boston — managed by an outside agency — flips this, giving PMax the majority of budget and reaping the rewards.
Virginia Beach
PMax gets 32% of budget but delivers 72% of conversions. AI Max gets 52% but delivers only 34%.
Cleveland
PMax gets 26% of budget but delivers 61% of conversions. AI Max gets 60% but delivers only 35%.
Richmond
PMax gets 36% of budget and delivers 41% of conversions. Budget is properly aligned.
Ft. Myers
PMax gets 41% of budget and delivers 45% of conversions. Budget is properly aligned.
Chicago
PMax gets 3% of budget but delivers 19% of conversions. AI Max gets 78% but delivers only 61%.
Boston
ModelPMax gets 54% of budget but delivers 82% of conversions. Search gets 34% but delivers only 14%.
Pittsburgh
PMax gets 30% of budget but delivers 40% of conversions. AI Max gets 60% but delivers only 51%.
Boston proves the model: give PMax the majority of budget, keep tracking clean, and CPL drops to $81. If the five corporate markets simply followed Boston's allocation, the combined CPL would drop by an estimated 40–50% overnight.
Search Term Quality
Where the Money Burns
All six markets hemorrhage money on search terms that never convert. The waste rate ranges from 8% to 56%. Chicago shows the lowest waste rate (8%) in its 2-month window, but this may reflect the short data period. Even Boston — the best-performing market — wastes 54% of search spend. Ft. Myers has the most negative keywords (2,175) yet still wastes 51%, proving that negatives alone cannot fix a broad match problem.
Virginia Beach
Search spend wasted
Cleveland
Search spend wasted
Richmond
Search spend wasted
Ft. Myers
Search spend wasted
Chicago
Search spend wasted
Boston
Search spend wasted
Pittsburgh
Search spend wasted
Common Junk Traffic Categories (All Markets)
Conversion Tracking
Broken Signals, Broken Bidding
The six corporate accounts have bloated, redundant conversion tracking setups with too many Primary actions. Google's Smart Bidding tries to optimize for 8–9 goals simultaneously — which means it optimizes for none effectively. Chicago has 33 actions with 9 Primary, but only "Opportunity - New" produces real leads. Pittsburgh has 18 actions with its Submit Lead Form MISCONFIGURED. Boston tracks only 2 actions and has the lowest CPL in the network.
Virginia Beach
41
Total Actions
9
Primary
39 conversion actions, 26 with zero conversions
9 Primary actions sending conflicting signals
Only 'Opportunity - New' is meaningful (63 conv)
Cleveland
26
Total Actions
8
Primary
Only 2 phone calls in 90 days — tracking is broken
Submit lead form marked as Secondary (wrong)
Maximize Conversion Value instead of Max Conversions
Richmond
28
Total Actions
8
Primary
YouTube follow-on views marked as Primary
3 Business Profile actions with 0 conversions marked Primary
CHEQ flagged 750 invalid users
5 separate phone call tracking actions (duplicates)
Ft. Myers
10
Total Actions
9
Primary
Submit lead form has ZERO Primary actions — MISCONFIGURED
YouTube follow-on views marked as Primary
Get directions & Engagement counted as leads
Landing page attribution completely broken (0 conv attributed)
2 conversion goals marked MISCONFIGURED
Chicago
33
Total Actions
9
Primary
9 Primary actions but only 'Opportunity - New' produces real leads (800 conv)
8 dead/noise Primary actions: Business Profile (4), Clicks to call, Marchex (2), YouTube views
100% Broad Match across all 289 keywords
Both campaigns flagged 'Eligible (Limited) — Not targeting relevant searches'
Boston
Clean2
Total Actions
2
Primary
Only 2 clean actions: Schedule Me + Calls from ads
Cleanest tracking in the network — gives Google clear signal
This is likely why Boston's PMax outperforms all other markets
Pittsburgh
18
Total Actions
9
Primary
9 Primary actions: 4 real (Phone, Contact ×2, Converted lead), 5 noise
Submit lead form has 0 Primary actions — MISCONFIGURED (same as FTM)
Get directions + Engagement + YouTube views all marked Primary
2 'Other' Primary actions — unidentifiable
Shared Diagnosis: Wrong Bid Strategy (Corporate Markets)
All six corporate markets use "Maximize Conversion Value" — a strategy that optimizes for ROAS, not lead volume. For a home services business where the goal is to generate leads, this is the wrong strategy. Boston uses Target CPA and Target Impression Share — and has the best results. All corporate markets should switch to "Maximize Conversions" with a Target CPA constraint.
Signal Forensics
Dirty Signals vs. Clean Signals
Every conversion action marked as "Primary" feeds Google's Smart Bidding algorithm. The corporate accounts have 8–9 Primary actions — most of which are not leads. Boston has 2. Here is every false-positive signal, what it actually measures, and why it harms performance.
Boston — The Clean Signal Benchmark
2 Primary actions · $123 CPL · 78.4 leads/month · Managed by outside agency
"Schedule Me" Button Clicks
PrimaryA homeowner fills out the consultation request form. This is the highest-intent action possible — they are asking Closet Factory to come to their home. 2,250 total over 14 months.
Calls from Ads
PrimaryA homeowner calls the business directly from the ad. One tracking action, no duplicates. A phone call is a lead. 310 total over 14 months.
Why this works: The algorithm receives a binary signal — either someone requested a consultation, or they didn't. No noise, no ambiguity. PMax gets 54% of budget, delivers 82% of conversions at $81 CPL. Google's own lead gen best practices say to "avoid selecting goals from multiple stages of your lead to sale journey." Boston follows this exactly.
YouTube Follow-On Views
criticalMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
Someone watched another YouTube video after seeing a Closet Factory ad. They did not submit a form or call.
Why It's Harmful
The algorithm treats a video viewer as equal to a lead. It then spends budget finding more YouTube viewers instead of homeowners requesting consultations. Google itself defaults this to Secondary.
What Google / Experts Say
"The default setting for YouTube follow-on views is 'Secondary action' to avoid overriding existing campaigns."
Google Ads Help — YouTube Follow-On ViewsGet Directions
criticalMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
A user clicked "Get Directions" on a Google Maps listing. They wanted to know where the showroom is.
Why It's Harmful
Closet Factory sends designers to the customer's home. A map click is not a consultation request. BrightClick documented an identical case and called it "zero value for lead generation."
What Google / Experts Say
"Get directions (zero value for lead generation). Their campaigns were spending $8,000 monthly to drive 847 page views but generating only three qualified leads."
BrightClick — Conversion Tracking MistakesEngagement
criticalMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
Vague behavioral metric — typically scroll depth, time on site, or page interactions. Not defined anywhere in the account.
Why It's Harmful
Tells the algorithm to find people who browse, not people who buy. Every "engagement" conversion dilutes the lead signal and shifts budget toward low-intent audiences.
What Google / Experts Say
"Metrics like scroll depth, time on site, or video engagement shouldn't be treated as primary conversion events in your ad account."
Search Engine Journal — Ameet Khabra (July 2025)Business Profile Actions (0 Conv)
highMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
3 separate Google Business Profile interactions — all marked Primary, all with zero conversions over 14 months.
Why It's Harmful
Zero-conversion Primary actions are dead weight that add noise. Google's own threshold is 15 conversions per month. These have zero over 14 months yet still occupy the bidding signal.
What Google / Experts Say
"Make sure the action generated at least 15 conversions in the last 30 days at the account level."
Google Ads Help — Lead Gen Best PracticesDuplicate Phone Call Tracking (×5)
highMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
5 separate phone call tracking actions — Google forwarding, Marchex, website tracking, call extensions, etc. One call fires 2–3 actions.
Why It's Harmful
A single phone call gets counted as 2–3 "conversions." This inflates reported lead volume, artificially lowers CPL, and misleads the algorithm about actual performance.
What Google / Experts Say
"Double counting primary conversions. It may be from the GA4 transition or just because conversion tracking has become more convoluted lately."
Harrison Hepp — LinkedIn (PPC Strategist)Submit Lead Form — Demoted or Missing
criticalMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
CLE: Submit lead form is marked Secondary (excluded from bidding). FTM & PGH: Submit lead form has zero Primary actions despite hundreds of results.
Why It's Harmful
The single most important action for lead gen is invisible to the bidding algorithm. Google literally cannot optimize toward form submissions because the action is excluded.
What Google / Experts Say
"Use conversion goals specific to lead generation: 'qualified lead,' 'converted lead,' 'book appointment,' or 'request quote.'"
Google Ads Help — Lead Gen Best Practices"Other" / Uncategorized Actions
highMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
2 Primary actions under "Other" — nobody managing the account can identify what they measure.
Why It's Harmful
An unidentifiable conversion action feeding the bidding algorithm is an uncontrolled variable. It could be measuring page loads, JS errors, or third-party tag fires.
What Google / Experts Say
N/A — Google has no guidance for actions nobody can identify, because they should not exist.
— Common sense
26 Zero-Conversion Actions
mediumMarked as PrimaryWhat It Actually Measures
26 of 41 total conversion actions in Virginia Beach have produced zero conversions over 14 months. Only "Opportunity — New" is meaningful (63 conv).
Why It's Harmful
Dead actions create signal noise. The algorithm receives 9 Primary signals but only 1 produces actual conversions. The other 8 are either zero or near-zero, diluting optimization.
What Google / Experts Say
"Select which conversion actions should be used for bidding optimization." — Primary actions are used for bidding.
Google Ads Help — Primary vs Secondary ActionsSignal-to-Noise Ratio: The Algorithm's Perspective
What the bidding algorithm "sees" when it looks at each account's Primary conversion actions
11%
signal purity
$464
Account CPL
Only 'Opportunity — New' is a real lead
0%
signal purity
$228
Account CPL
Submit lead form is Secondary — excluded from bidding
25%
signal purity
$255
Account CPL
YouTube views, 0-conv profiles, 5× phone dupes
0%
signal purity
$309
Account CPL
Lead form has 0 Primary — directions & engagement instead
11%
signal purity
$156
Account CPL
Only 'Opportunity - New' produces real leads (800 conv)
44%
signal purity
$322
Account CPL
Submit lead form MISCONFIGURED — Get Directions + Engagement as Primary
100%
signal purity
$123
Account CPL
Form + Calls — 100% signal, 0% noise
The Bottom Line: These Are Not Conversions
A YouTube video view is not a lead. A map click is not a consultation. An "engagement" event is not a sale. When these actions are marked as Primary, Google's Smart Bidding algorithm treats them as equal to a homeowner requesting a free design consultation — and optimizes The corporate accounts are paying $156–$464 per "conversion" because most of those "conversions" are not conversions at all. Boston pays $123 because every conversion is a real lead. The fix is architectural, not incremental: reduce to 2 Primary actions, match Boston's model, and let the algorithm do what it was designed to do.
The Fraud Mechanism
How Dirty Signals Invite Fake Leads
Dirty conversion signals don't just waste budget — they create a self-reinforcing feedback loop that actively attracts more bots and low-quality traffic. Here is the mechanism, step by step, backed by industry research.
Bloated Primary Actions Lower the Bar
When 8–9 actions are marked Primary — video views, map clicks, engagement, profile clicks — the algorithm's definition of "success" becomes trivially easy to achieve. A bot that scrolls a page or clicks a map link counts as a "conversion."
Smart Bidding Learns from Junk
Google's machine learning judges all of that as conversions. It keeps fueling the same behavior, thinking it's succeeding. The algorithm doesn't know a video view isn't a lead — it only knows the Primary action fired.
"Performance Max only knows what you teach it. If it sees garbage form fills as conversions, it will keep chasing them."
Freak.MarketingThe Algorithm Finds More of the Same
Smart Bidding optimizes toward the cheapest conversions. Bots and low-intent users are cheap to acquire. Real homeowners requesting consultations are expensive. The algorithm chases the easy wins — which are the fake ones.
"Google sees you're getting more conversions from a Display ad, it's going to continue placing your ad on that same website. But in reality, the website is bogus."
MarlinSEMThe Persistence Loop Locks In
The same low-quality sources keep coming back. They keep re-entering the funnel. They keep generating junk submissions that poison the conversion data. The algorithm sees "success" and doubles down.
"This creates a persistence loop: the same low-quality sources keep coming back, they keep re-entering the funnel, and they keep generating junk submissions that poison your conversion data."
ClixtellThe Spam Death Spiral
Reported conversions go up. Reported CPL goes down. But real leads go down. Real CPL goes up. The account looks like it's working while it's actually dying. This is the state of the corporate accounts.
"Many PMax campaigns fail because of the spam death spiral. A few cheap spam leads get recorded as conversions, and the algorithm starts chasing more of the same."
Pete BowenWhy the Corporate Actions Are a Bot's Dream
The key insight: every dirty signal is an action that is trivially easy for automated traffic to complete. Boston's 2 actions require real human effort. The algorithm has no cheap wins to chase — it must find real homeowners.
Corporate Actions — Easy for Bots
6 cheap signals"Be careful about adding conversion actions that are easy for bots to complete, such as email clicks, phone clicks, add to cart events." — MarlinSEM
Boston Actions — Hard for Bots
2 real signalsThe algorithm has no cheap wins to chase. Every "conversion" requires a real homeowner taking a real action. This is why Boston's CPL is $123 and the corporate average is $314.
The Scale of the Problem — Industry Research
How This Applies to Closet Factory's Corporate Accounts
The corporate template runs 8–9 Primary conversion actions across PMax, Demand Gen, and Search campaigns. Every one of those cheap signals — YouTube views, map clicks, engagement events — is an entry point for the feedback loop described above. The algorithm sees "conversions" happening and optimizes to find more of the same traffic. That traffic is not homeowners requesting consultations. It is bots, low-intent browsers, and accidental clicks.
Corporate Path (VB, CLE, RVA, FTM)
9 Primary actions → algorithm has 9 definitions of "success"
7 of 9 are trivially easy for bots to complete
Smart Bidding optimizes toward cheapest conversions
Cheapest conversions = bot traffic & low-intent users
Reported CPL looks acceptable ($228–$464)
Real lead CPL is much higher — most "leads" aren't leads
Sales team wastes hours chasing dead contacts
Boston Path
2 Primary actions → algorithm has 1 definition of "success"
Both actions require real human effort to complete
Smart Bidding must find people who fill out forms or call
No cheap shortcuts → no bot-friendly entry points
Reported CPL is $123 — and it's real
78.4 leads/month, highest volume in the network
Sales team gets actionable leads they can close
The Feedback Loop Is the Root Cause
The dirty signals don't just waste money — they actively train Google to bring more junk. Every YouTube view counted as a "conversion" teaches the algorithm that YouTube viewers are valuable. Every map click counted as a "conversion" teaches it that casual browsers are leads. The algorithm is doing exactly what it was told to do. It was told the wrong thing. Boston told it the right thing. That is why Boston wins. The fix is not to add fraud detection tools on top of a broken foundation. The fix is to stop telling the algorithm that bots are leads.
Evidence Base
Research Sources — The Fraud Loop
Every claim in the fraud loop section is backed by documented evidence. Below are all 27 sources organized by the loop step they support, with key quotes and relevance explanations. Click any source to expand.
27
Total Sources
16
Google First-Party
9
Industry Expert
2
Third-Party Research
59% of Sources Are Google's Own Documentation
The fraud loop mechanism is not a theory constructed from outside critics. It is a logical consequence of Google's own documented system behavior when the system is fed the wrong inputs. Google wrote the rules. Google documented how the algorithm learns. Google published best practices the corporate accounts violate. Google even built a product (enhanced conversions for leads) to fix the problem.
Bloated Primary Actions Lower the Bar
Smart Bidding Learns from Junk Data
The Algorithm Finds Cheap Bot Traffic
The Persistence Loop Locks In
The Spam Death Spiral
Quantitative Context — The Scale of Invalid Traffic
Master Source Reference Table
The Evidence Is Not Ambiguous
Google built a machine learning system that optimizes toward whatever you tell it is a conversion. Google documented how that system works. Google published best practices telling advertisers to use only lead-generation-specific goals. Google even built a product (enhanced conversions for leads) to fix the problem when advertisers feed the system bad data. The corporate Closet Factory accounts ignored all of this guidance. Boston followed it. That is why Boston wins.
Pattern Recognition
Systemic vs. Market-Specific Issues
Seven issues appear in every corporate market — proving these are template-level problems, not local decisions. Boston, managed by an outside agency, avoids most of them and has the best results. Chicago and Pittsburgh, the newest additions, confirm the pattern at scale. Pittsburgh as a digital-only market shows the ceiling of Google Ads without brand-building media. Green cells indicate where a market does it right.
Systemic Issues (Corporate Template)
7 issues| Issue | VB | CLE | RVA | FTM | CHI | BOS | PGH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Budget Inversion | PMax 32% budget → 72% conv | PMax 26% budget → 61% conv | PMax 36% budget → 41% conv | PMax 41% budget → 45% conv (milder) | PMax 3% budget → 19% conv (worst) | PMax 54% budget → 82% conv (BEST) | PMax 30% budget → 40% conv |
| 100% Broad Match | All 74 keywords broad | All keywords broad | All 95 keywords broad | All 106 keywords broad | All 289 keywords broad | Mixed: 57% Phrase, 38% Broad, 4% Exact | All keywords broad |
| Bloated Conversion Tracking | 41 actions, 9 Primary | 26 actions, 8 Primary | 28 actions, 8 Primary | 10 actions, 9 Primary | 33 actions, 9 Primary | 2 actions, 2 Primary (CLEAN) | 18 actions, 9 Primary |
| Wrong Bid Strategy | Max Conv Value | Max Conv Value | Max Conv Value | Max Conv Value | Max Conv Value | Target CPA / Target Imp Share | Max Conv Value |
| Demand Gen CPL > $400 | $597 CPL | $694 CPL | $421 CPL | $528 CPL | No Demand Gen campaign | No Demand Gen campaign | $378 CPL |
| Same Junk Traffic | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture | DIY, retail, furniture |
| AI Max Overfunded | 68% budget, $438 CPL | 60% budget, $395 CPL | 63% budget, $207 CPL | 48% budget, $307 CPL | 97% budget, $199/$149 CPL | No AI Max campaign | 60% budget, $376 CPL |
Market-Specific Findings
7 findings| Finding | VB | CLE | RVA | FTM | CHI | BOS | PGH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YouTube TV Campaign | $18K, 0 conv | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| CBD Direct Threat | Not in auction insights | 47% pos above rate | CBD converts at $210 CPL | 54% overlap, 57% pos above | Not in auction insights | 69% overlap, 83% pos above (worst) | Not quantified |
| Broken Phone Tracking | Not flagged | 2 calls in 90 days | Marchex stale | Not flagged | Not flagged | Not flagged | Not flagged |
| Branded Search Waste | Not quantified | Not quantified | Not quantified | $9,606 on brand terms | $8,016 on brand terms (no isolation) | $3,001 on brand terms | 31% brand-driven at $180 CPL |
| Spend Trajectory Shift | Steady $13K/mo | ~90 day window | Ramped to $19K Jan 26 | Dormant Oct–Dec, 700% ramp Jan 26 | Cut to $1.2K Oct–Dec, ramped to $11K Jan 26 | Steady $9.7K/mo | Crashed Oct–Dec, 300% ramp Jan 26 |
| Impression Share | Not quantified | Not quantified | Not quantified | 26% impression share | Not quantified | 10.43% (lowest in network) | Not quantified |
| Brand Dependency | Not quantified | Not quantified | Not quantified | Not quantified | 47.5% brand/competitor dependent | Not quantified | 31% brand-driven |
7 Systemic Issues
These failures appear in all six corporate markets and stem from the same account management template. Fixing them at the template level fixes them everywhere.
7 Market-Specific Findings
These vary by market — VB's YouTube TV campaign, CLE's zero negatives, FTM's branded search waste, Chicago's 47.5% brand dependency, Pittsburgh's Q4 crash, and Boston's low impression share.
Boston: The Proof
Boston avoids most systemic issues and has the lowest CPL in the network. The outside agency's approach is the model for what the corporate template should become.
The Opportunity
Projected 90-Day Impact
Same budget. Different results. By fixing the systemic issues across all six markets simultaneously — applying the approach Boston already uses — the combined performance transforms dramatically.
Combined CPL
$209
Current
$105
Projected
Monthly Leads
523
Current
920
Projected
Waste Rate
~47%
Current
<10%
Projected