Case study
Premium apartments: warm audiences that cut cost per lead by 44%
Video-viewer retargeting delivered 1,136 leads at PKR 1,015 against PKR 1,804 on broad prospecting — same creative library, different audience.
The challenge
The highest ticket and the longest decision cycle in the portfolio. Premium buyers engage with beautiful ads easily — and then decline to share a phone number.
Two findings, pointing in opposite directions
| Ad set | Leads | Cost per lead | CTR | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Video viewers (retargeting) | 1,136 | PKR 1,015 | 0.77% | PKR 64 |
| Broad audience (copy) | 3,664 | PKR 1,351 | 0.59% | PKR 64 |
| Interest audience | 3,465 | PKR 1,358 | 0.44% | PKR 59 |
| Post engagers (retargeting) | 381 | PKR 1,601 | 0.52% | PKR 82 |
| Broad audience | 2,026 | PKR 1,804 | 0.52% | PKR 79 |
| Luxury interest audience | 186 | PKR 1,967 | 1.08% | PKR 35 |
| Project total | 11,311 | PKR 1,438 | 0.54% | PKR 64 |
Warm beats cold. The cold campaigns paid for those video views once; the warm campaign converted them a second time — 44% cheaper.
Clicks are not leads. The luxury audience had the best CTR and the cheapest click in the project, and nearly the worst cost per lead. Scaling on engagement would have scaled the wrong thing.
What we changed
- Made video-first prospecting the default, so every cold impression also builds a retargeting pool.
- Shifted budget toward the warm tier as pools matured.
- Added a qualifying question to the premium form and made the offer concrete: payment plan, floor layout and availability sheet.
- Rebuilt the lookalike on qualified leads after a thin-seed version returned 31 leads at PKR 1,779.
CTR and CPC measure the ad. Cost per lead measures the offer. Qualified rate measures the audience. They are three different diagnostics.
More case studies
Keep reading.
Start a project
Want results like these?
Tell us about your business. You will get a clear plan and a transparent quote within one business day.