Case Studies

This case study shows what happens when a client needs results immediately, not “after the account learns.”

The client launched a brand-new Google Ads account, which effectively resets all performance data. In most cases, that means higher early costs and unstable efficiency.

That’s exactly what we saw.

Early conversions were coming in at $243 per phone call — a number that simply doesn’t work for most service businesses. At that level, there’s no margin, no room for error, and no path to scale.

Instead of waiting, the account was immediately audited and rebuilt.

What we focused on first

The initial goal wasn’t just lowering cost — it was fixing what the account was converting for.

Broad “junk hauling” searches were driving smaller pickup jobs. Even when those calls converted, the ROI wasn’t there.

So the strategy shifted.

Keyword targeting was rebuilt around high-value work, including:

Hoarder cleanouts

Estate and house cleanouts

Garden shed removal

Heavy and full-load junk removal

Basement and large-scale hauling

These were keywords the account hadn’t converted for previously — but they’re the jobs that actually move revenue.

What changed in one month

Through focused keyword research, competitor gap analysis, and ongoing optimization:

Cost per phone call dropped from $243 to $95 in 30 days

Low-ROI pickup jobs were filtered out

Higher-ticket cleanouts became the primary drivers of performance

The trajectory continued downward, with expectations to stabilize closer to $50–$70 per call as the account matured.

The real signal

The most important outcome wasn’t a dashboard metric.

After seeing the quality of jobs coming in and the improvement in ROI, the client asked to increase their budget to $4,500 the following month.

That’s the difference between ads that “run” and ads that work.

This case study is a clear example of how fast results are possible when optimization is driven by job economics, not just lead volume — and when decisions are made quickly instead of waiting for problems to fix themselves.

This case study shows what happens when advertising strategy is built around geography, seasonality, and job type — not a generic playbook.

This client operates in a small East Coast market with limited search volume, where winter conditions make efficiency even harder to maintain.

That’s exactly where this account started.

The client was spending about $2,000 per month with a cost per conversion of $108 — a level that leaves little margin unless every job closes at a high ticket.

Instead of forcing volume, the strategy shifted.

What we focused on first

The priority wasn’t spending more.

It was aligning the account with what actually works in this region during winter.

Broad strategies that perform well in warmer, higher-volume markets don’t translate here. On the East Coast in winter, demand shifts.

The focus moved toward job types that still exist when weather slows everything else:

Storage unit cleanouts

Commercial and recurring services

Work that produces consistent revenue despite seasonality

At the same time, the client’s budget was reduced to conserve cash while the right pockets of traffic were identified.

What changed

In January, cost per conversion dropped modestly to $98 — not dramatic, but intentional.

By February:

Cost per conversion fell to $65

Job quality improved materially

Efficiency held even as winter conditions persisted

As search volume increased in the summer:

Costs stabilized near $60

Monthly budget held around $3,000

Performance remained strong despite rising CPCs from inflation

The hidden fix

One of the biggest issues uncovered was overuse of broad match keywords, especially damaging in winter.

Broad match was attracting waste, trash, and vehicle-related searches — cheaper clicks that rarely convert into the jobs this client actually wanted.

The account was rebuilt using phrase and exact match targeting, paired with aggressive search-term review and ongoing negative keyword maintenance to keep the account focused.

The real signal

Even years later, with inflation pushing ad costs higher, this client’s winter cost per conversion remains well below where they started, while overall conversion volume has increased.

This is what happens when advertising is tailored to real-world constraints — not ideal conditions — and when strategy is built around where the business operates, not just how ads are run.

This case study shows what happens when advertising strategy is aligned with what a business actually needs to sell — not just what it can sell.

This client is based on the East Coast and runs a large dumpster rental operation. While they also offer junk removal, dumpsters are their priority and primary revenue driver.

That distinction matters.

The Starting Point: Demand Without Direction

When this client came to us, ads were running across both junk removal and dumpster-related searches.

On paper, performance looked fine.

But in reality, demand wasn’t being directed toward the asset that mattered most: dumpster inventory sitting on the lot.

This is a common issue for hybrid businesses.

The problem wasn’t lack of leads — it was misalignment.

What we focused on first

The first step wasn’t spending more.

It was slowing things down intentionally.

Budget was immediately reduced so performance could be evaluated without unnecessary spend. The goal was to keep leads flowing while identifying exactly what the market was responding to.

Once that picture was clear, the strategy shifted.

Instead of competing for junk-heavy traffic, the account was rebuilt around pure dumpster intent.

That meant:

Prioritizing dumpster rental keywords

De-emphasizing junk removal searches

Directing demand toward inventory that needed to move

If you have 100 dumpsters on the lot, that’s where the ads should point.

What changed

In March, cost per conversion sat around $32 with higher overall spend.

By April:

Cost per conversion dropped to $27

Monthly spend was reduced to about $4,000

In May, something more important happened.

The client sold out of dumpsters.

Because inventory was gone, ad spend dropped further — to roughly $3,000 — while revenue peaked.

Two months earlier, the client spent nearly double and still had inventory sitting.

Now, they were fully booked.

The real signal

This wasn’t a one-time spike.

The strategy held.

The client continues to sell out regularly and, at times, has to pause ads entirely because there are no dumpsters left to rent.

That’s a good problem to have.

This case study is a clear example of how small, deliberate pivots — especially for businesses offering multiple services — can unlock outsized ROI when advertising is aligned with capacity, inventory, and priorities, not just lead volume.

This case study shows what happens when a Florida-based account shifts from guesswork to strategy — and from generic advice to disciplined execution.

Florida is a tough state to advertise in.

Competition is heavy, CPCs are high, and small mistakes get expensive fast.

This client originally launched their own ads after receiving sub-professional advice. The result was predictable.

The Starting Point: High Cost, Little Margin

When the client came to us, cost per conversion was sitting around $130.

At that level:

Profit margin is thin

Closing pressure is high

Scaling becomes risky

The account wasn’t broken — it was undirected.

What we focused on first

The first goal wasn’t volume.

It was efficiency and intent.

Early on, the account was restructured to tighten targeting and improve conversion quality. By February:

Cost per conversion dropped to about $80

Conversion rate climbed to an unusually high level

For context, most ad platforms convert between 1–3%.

In home services, anything above 3–5% is considered strong.

This account was converting at nearly double that.

What changed as the strategy matured

By June, cost per conversion dropped further — to around $60 — while conversion rate held near 8%.

That level of efficiency is rare, especially in a competitive Florida market.

One of the biggest shifts was an aggressive focus on location-based keywords.

Searches like:

“junk removal Naples”

city + service combinations

These keywords signal high intent.

They’re also the same keywords large national brands bid on heavily because they convert.

By leaning into these location terms, nearly half of the client’s conversions began coming from a single, high-quality keyword cluster.

Expanding into higher-ROI work

As performance stabilized, the strategy expanded beyond residential junk removal.

Commercial intent — including construction debris removal — was layered in to improve job size and overall ROI.

Even as budget increased and new job types were added:

Cost per conversion held around $59

Conversion quality remained strong

The real signal

This account didn’t improve because of one tweak.

It improved because targeting, location dominance, and job intent were aligned — and because changes were made methodically, not reactively.

In one of the most competitive states to advertise in, the client moved from barely workable numbers to a stable, scalable acquisition engine built around high-intent searches.

This case study shows what real scaling looks like when it’s done deliberately — not by throwing more money at ads, but by reshaping what the account converts for over time.

This client has been with us for two full years.

They came to us as a solid company with strong operations and good overall ROI — but their Google Ads weren’t contributing meaningfully to growth.

They didn’t need leads.

They needed leverage.

The Starting Point: Efficient, but Limited

When this client signed on in early 2024, they were spending roughly $3,000–$3,700 per month.

Cost per conversion sat around $44, which is objectively good.

But the issue wasn’t cost.

If you looked at the keywords driving those conversions, most of the traffic was coming from:

Appliance pickups

Smaller junk removal jobs

Low-ROI services that don’t scale well — especially in winter

Nothing was “wrong.”

But nothing was built for growth.

What we focused on first

The initial focus wasn’t scaling spend.

It was changing the type of work the ads were selling.

Instead of competing for small, transactional jobs, the account was rebuilt around high-ROI services, including:

House cleanouts

Estate cleanouts

Storage unit cleanouts

Specialty and demolition-related removals

These jobs don’t just convert — they move revenue.

Keyword strategy was expanded aggressively, with hundreds of tightly grouped keywords and multiple ad groups per service to control intent and cost.

What changed over time

As traffic shifted, performance followed.

At various points over the two-year period:

Cost per conversion dropped into the $30s

In some months, costs fell even lower depending on job mix

More importantly, confidence increased.

As the account proved it could consistently generate high-value work, spend increased gradually:

From ~$3,000/month

To $14,000/month

To $30,000+ per month

All while cost per conversion held steady.

Two years later — despite inflation and rising CPCs of 10–18% annually — the account is converting at roughly $41 per call, lower than where it started.

Why costs fluctuate — and why that’s intentional

You’ll notice cost per conversion isn’t flat month to month.

That’s by design.

As bidding shifts toward:

Demolition

Specialty removals

Large cleanouts

Costs move — but job size and ROI increase.

This isn’t about chasing the cheapest lead.

It’s about bidding intentionally on work that supports scale.

The real signal

This client didn’t scale because ads were “optimized.”

They scaled because:

Traffic was shifted toward high-value services

Spend increased only after ROI was proven

Winter strategies protected efficiency during slower months

Today, this account runs tens of thousands per month with the same discipline it started with at $3,000.

That’s what sustainable scaling actually looks like.

This case study highlights one of the most common — and expensive — mistakes service businesses make during the winter: listening to Google Ads recommendations without understanding the consequences.

Winter is hard for almost everyone in home services.

Even in warmer climates, demand softens and margins get tighter.

That’s why winter strategy isn’t about chasing volume.

It’s about controlling lead cost and protecting ROI.

This client was doing exactly that — until a Google Ads rep got involved.

The Starting Point: Stable, Profitable Winter Performance

Before changes were made, this account was in a good place.

Cost per conversion was holding around $65

Conversion volume was healthy for winter

Job mix leaned toward higher-ROI cleanouts and commercial work

The client was even discussing raising their budget

The strategy was working.

What went wrong

Like many business owners, the client received a call from a Google Ads representative.

These reps often position themselves as advisors — but they are salespeople, not account strategists.

In this case, the rep spoke with a junior employee and recommended a series of “optimizations,” including:

Switching keywords to broad match

Turning on AI Search Max

Applying multiple automated recommendations

Increasing budget to “capture missed conversions”

On paper, these changes look harmless.

In practice, they’re dangerous.

The damage caused by automated recommendations

Once those changes were applied, the account began attracting:

Waste management searches

Trash and disposal terms

Low-intent, non-buying traffic

These clicks are cheaper — but they don’t turn into paying customers.

Worse, many of these changes happen quietly. Google doesn’t clearly show how campaigns are being altered once AI Search Max is enabled.

The result:

Loss of control

Wasted spend

Rising cost per conversion

Undoing this isn’t instant.

It takes time to comb through change history, remove bad keywords, and rebuild structure.

The corrective action

Once the issue was identified, the strategy shifted to damage control.

Broad match keywords were removed

AI-driven changes were rolled back

Search terms were cleaned aggressively

Budget was intentionally reduced to prevent further waste

For this month, spend was pulled back to about $700 — not because the account couldn’t perform, but because protecting capital mattered more than chasing volume after disruption.

Cost per conversion temporarily increased as the account stabilized.

That tradeoff was intentional.

The real lesson

Google Ads reps are not neutral advisors.

Their goal is to increase spend — not protect your ROI.

Features like:

Broad match everywhere

AI Search Max

Automated recommendations

often benefit Google far more than the advertiser — especially in seasonal, margin-sensitive businesses.

This case study is a clear example of why strategy beats automation, and why accounts need hands-on management — especially during winter.

Sometimes the smartest move isn’t spending more.

It’s knowing when to pull back, fix the foundation, and protect the business.

This case study shows what happens when an account stops paying for bad economics and starts bidding around actual ROI.

When most clients come to us, the first issue isn’t volume — it’s cost per lead.

You don’t close every lead.

So when a lead costs $365 and turns into a couch pickup, the math simply doesn’t work.

That’s where this account started.

The Starting Point: Unsustainable Lead Costs

When this client came in, cost per lead was sitting around $365.

At that level:

Even good close rates don’t save you

Small jobs lose money

Scaling is impossible

The account needed a reset — fast.

What we focused on first

The initial priority was twofold:

Lower the average cost per lead

Shift traffic toward high-ROI work

That meant moving away from low-value jobs and toward keywords tied to:

House cleanouts

Commercial jobs

Larger, multi-hour services

Early changes produced immediate movement.

What changed in the first 90 days

By December, cost per lead dropped sharply — down to about $51.

Still high depending on job type, but dramatically better than $365.

From there, optimization continued.

By January:

Cost per lead dropped to $15

February held in the $15–$20 range

That range became the account’s true average, based on market conditions and keyword mix.

At that level, the account had flexibility — not pressure.

Why low cost alone isn’t the goal

A $15 lead only matters if it’s attached to the right job.

At higher average lead costs (say $50+), strategy narrows — you only bid on jobs that justify it.

But at $15–$20 per lead, options open up.

That’s why this account was able to test and rotate aggressively.

Ongoing strategy: Test, kill, rebuild

This account wasn’t “set and forget.”

Over time, multiple campaigns were built and tested, including:

Cleanouts

Light demolition

Shed removal

Website traffic and support campaigns

When something didn’t perform, it was replaced with fresh keyword research and new structure.

This constant refinement is how true ROI is found — not by forcing what isn’t working.

Keyword-level ROI (where it really matters)

The biggest wins came from high-value intent keywords such as:

Home junk removal

Construction debris removal

Apartment cleanout services

One construction debris lead alone turned into a multi-thousand-dollar job, while costing only $20 to acquire.

Even when a lead doesn’t convert, that math still works.

The real signal

This account didn’t succeed because costs dropped once.

It succeeded because:

Lead cost was driven down to a sustainable average

Traffic was aligned with high-ROI services

Campaigns were continuously tested and rebuilt

That’s how an account moves from bleeding money to producing real, repeatable return.

This case study shows what happens when a poorly structured account is rebuilt around conversion quality, commercial intent, and capacity awareness.

This client is based in the Midwest and launched their Google Ads on their own in December. They had the right intention — but the execution wasn’t there.

The Starting Point: High Cost, Low Conversion Rate

When the account came to us:

Cost per conversion was around $61

Monthly spend was just under $2,000

Conversion rate was well below what it should be

For most home service businesses, a healthy conversion rate sits around 3–4% when ads and website are aligned.

When that number is significantly lower, it’s a clear signal that something is broken — either in targeting, structure, or messaging.

In this case, it was all three.

What we focused on first

The first priority was fixing the fundamentals:

Tightening targeting

Correcting keyword intent

Aligning ads with what the business actually wanted to book

Within two months, the impact was immediate.

By February:

Conversion rate increased to 5%

Cost per conversion dropped to about $17

All of this happened during winter, which makes the result even more meaningful.

What changed once the account stabilized

Performance held steady.

Even as the months progressed:

Cost per conversion stayed near $17

Conversion rate remained healthy

Budget was increased during winter because ROI justified it

This client consistently began landing commercial jobs, which changed the economics entirely.

In fact, this account routinely produces 5–6x ROI, which is well above the typical target of 2–3x.

Why ROI stayed strong

A big part of this success came down to what the account was bidding on.

High-ROI keywords became the foundation, including:

Debris removal

Storage unit cleanouts

Apartment and property cleanouts

Commercial junk removal

One apartment cleanout tied to an eviction can easily be a $4,000 job.

One recent commercial job booked for around $20,000.

At that point, ad costs are no longer the concern.

Capacity matters, too

More leads don’t always mean better outcomes.

In this case, the client reached a point where:

Calendar was full

Staff capacity was maxed out

Instead of forcing growth, the strategy shifted to maintenance mode:

Budget was adjusted downward

Performance was preserved

Planning began around hiring and future scale

That restraint protected service quality and profitability.

The real signal

Two months after launch:

Cost per conversion dropped by more than 70%

Conversion rate exceeded benchmarks

Commercial and high-ticket jobs became consistent

This account didn’t improve because of luck.

It improved because:

Targeting was rebuilt correctly

Job economics were prioritized

Spend matched capacity, not ego

That’s how a struggling launch turns into a dependable acquisition engine — even in winter.

This case study is a clean example of how winter advertising should actually work for junk removal businesses.

Junk removal is seasonal — everyone knows that.

What most businesses get wrong is how they respond to it.

Winter strategy isn’t about pushing harder.

It’s about changing what you bid on.

The Starting Point: Winter Pressure, Limited Demand

As winter set in, this client faced the same reality most operators do:

Less residential junk removal demand

Higher pressure on margins

Fewer opportunities to “make it up on volume”

Running the same junk-heavy strategy into winter would have burned cash.

So the strategy shifted.

What we focused on first

Instead of chasing cheaper, lower-value junk removal leads, the account was rebuilt around high-ROI, less seasonal work.

The primary focus became:

Storage unit cleanouts

Commercial debris removal

House and hoarder cleanouts

At the time of review, the client had five active storage unit leads alone — jobs that can pay for an entire month of ads with just one or two closes.

Winter math that actually works

During winter, the client’s ad spend was intentionally metered.

Instead of overspending, budget was cut to around $1,400 for the month.

Even with a slightly higher cost per conversion:

Closing just two storage unit cleanouts easily delivers 3x ROI

One strong commercial job can cover the entire month

That’s the difference between surviving winter and bleeding through it.

Why costs are higher — and why that’s okay

Commercial and specialty jobs cost more per lead than basic junk removal.

That’s expected.

There aren’t thousands of storage unit cleanouts happening every month — but the ones that do exist pay significantly more.

Higher intent.

Higher job value.

Better economics.

That’s the tradeoff we make intentionally during winter.

Controlling demand through structure

This account isn’t guessing.

Campaigns are built to control what type of leads come in:

Hoarder cleanouts received dedicated campaigns because of high local demand

House cleanouts, estate work, and evictions were prioritized

Seasonal services like hot tub removal were added when relevant

Appliance removal was tested only when cost stayed extremely low

This variety isn’t accidental — it’s engineered through monthly keyword research and active management.

Structure matters more than spend

For example, just one house cleanout campaign:

Contains 7 ad groups

Covers 100+ tightly targeted keywords

Captures every variation of high-intent search in that market

That level of structure is what keeps performance balanced — even when demand fluctuates.

The real signal

This client didn’t “power through” winter.

They stayed profitable because:

Spend was reduced intentionally

Job mix shifted toward high-ROI work

Campaigns were structured to control demand, not chase volume

That’s what a real winter strategy looks like.

Not more ads.

Better decisions.

This case study shows what happens when scaling isn’t driven by spend — but by changing the type of work an account converts for.

This client has been with us for nearly two years.

They came in as a strong operator with a solid business, but their Google Ads weren’t producing meaningful ROI.

They didn’t need “more leads.”

They needed better ones.

The Starting Point: Efficient, But Capped

In early 2024, the client was spending about $3,700 per month.

Cost per conversion: ~$45

Total conversions: 83

ROI: limited

On the surface, the numbers looked fine.

But when you looked deeper, almost all of the traffic was coming from generic junk removal searches:

“junk removal”

“someone to pick up junk”

“take away my junk”

These jobs convert — but they don’t scale.

That’s why spend stayed low.

What we focused on first

The initial strategy wasn’t increasing budget.

It was rebuilding core keyword targeting.

The account was restructured around high-ROI services, including:

House cleanouts

Estate cleanouts

Storage unit cleanouts

Commercial and specialty removals

These are jobs that can be worth thousands, not hundreds.

Keyword coverage expanded aggressively, with:

Hundreds of tightly grouped keywords

Multiple ad groups per service

Intent controlled at the job-type level

This wasn’t about cheaper leads.

It was about higher return per lead.

What changed over time

As job mix improved, confidence followed.

Gradually, spend increased:

From ~$3,700/month

To $14,000/month

To $30,000/month

Along with that:

Monthly leads grew from 83 to over 700

Cost per conversion held steady

Despite inflation and rising CPCs, the account is now converting at about $3 less per lead than it was two years ago.

That’s not common.

That’s controlled scaling.

Why lead quality stayed high

Paying ~$40 per lead only works if the jobs justify it.

In this account, they do.

A large share of conversions now come from:

House cleanout keywords

Estate cleanout services

Storage unit cleanouts

Many of these keywords convert in the $17–$30 range.

Even if only a portion of those leads close, ROI remains strong because job size carries the weight.

This is why keyword-level ROI is reviewed constantly — not just cost.

The real signal

Two years ago, this account couldn’t justify spending more than $3,000 per month.

Today, it confidently spends $30,000 per month — with:

Better job mix

Higher total revenue

Lower cost per conversion than where it started

That didn’t happen because of a trick.

It happened because ads were rebuilt around core services that scale, and budget only increased after ROI was proven.

This is what long-term growth looks like when it’s engineered — not forced.