Case study
Large-format family apartments: SMS-verified forms that lowered cost per lead
Adding a verification step was expected to raise costs. Instead, the verified ad sets delivered the two cheapest leads in the project.
The test
We ran SMS-verified lead forms alongside standard forms in the same project — a clean, natural experiment on lead quality. Conventional wisdom says friction raises cost per lead. This account said otherwise.
| Ad set | Form | Leads | Cost per lead | CTR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic audience | SMS verified | 26 | PKR 481 | 1.02% |
| Demographic audience | SMS verified | 104 | PKR 623 | 1.13% |
| Interest audience | Standard | 253 | PKR 785 | 0.78% |
| Demographic audience | Standard | 610 | PKR 792 | 0.67% |
| Demographic audience, scale | Standard | 1,097 | PKR 963 | 0.77% |
| Lookalike, qualified seed | Standard | 277 | PKR 808 | 0.52% |
| Combined | 3,229 | PKR 856 | 0.71% |
How we read it
The verified ad sets ran on small budgets and short windows, so the result is directional, not final. Our working explanation: verification changes who submits. A person willing to verify intended to be contacted, and Meta finds that person more efficiently than the tap-and-abandon submitter.
Verification is now being expanded in stages, on separate ad sets, so the comparison stays readable.
Friction in a lead form is not automatically a cost. Test it — it only takes one ad set.
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.