The $1,202 Campaign: 79 Leads, One Rebuilt Funnel, No Client Name to Hide Behind

What results has this AI marketing consultant actually gotten clients?

I’ll answer the question I can actually answer honestly: what I’ve gotten myself. The number cited across this site, 79 leads on $1,202 of Meta spend in 30 days, roughly $15 per lead, is from my own pest-control service business, Mosquito Shield of Boca & Ft. Lauderdale, not a client’s. I’m not going to dress up someone else’s results as proof when I have dated, verifiable numbers from a business I own and run. That’s the whole point of citing my own P&L instead of a testimonial.

What was broken before this campaign?

The funnel, not the ad spend. You can pour money into Meta and still lose most of it at the landing page if the page asks for a decision the visitor isn’t ready to make. The original funnel led with price: a classic pest-control move, and a mistake, because price without context just reads as a number to shop against three competitors.

What did the rebuild actually change?

Three things, in order of impact:

1. Assessment-before-price funnel structure. The page stopped leading with a quote and started leading with a free assessment, lower commitment, higher completion rate. The rebuilt funnel is still running live; walk it yourself if you want to see the structure rather than read about it. Price conversations move to the call, after the visitor has already said yes once.
2. Campaign structure aligned to actual service radius, not a broad county-wide target that burned spend on addresses outside the service area.
3. A CRM bridge that routes every form fill and call into the same pipeline automatically, so no lead sits unworked because it landed in the wrong inbox.

None of this is exotic. It’s the boring, unglamorous work of matching the funnel to how a homeowner actually decides to hire a pest-control company, and it’s exactly the kind of work a $60,000-a-year retainer often doesn’t touch, because the agency’s incentive is ad spend, not funnel conversion.

Is $15 a lead good?

I don’t have a sourced category benchmark I’m willing to cite, so I won’t claim one, check $15 against what you’re paying today, because your own number is the only benchmark that matters. What I can say with certainty is the counterfactual: before the funnel rebuild, the same ad spend produced fewer, lower-quality leads at a higher blended cost, because the page itself was leaking visitors before they ever reached a form.

Why does this one campaign carry so much weight on this site?

Because it’s the proof that survives scrutiny. Client results are easy to cherry-pick and impossible for a stranger to verify: which is exactly why this site doesn’t publish any beyond status labels (LIVE, LAUNCHING, IN BUILD) on the client-work list. My own business is the one set of numbers I can show you the receipts for without breaking anyone’s confidentiality. This campaign is also the engine behind roughly 85% of that business’s customer acquisition, not a side experiment, the primary channel, running on the same discipline described here.

What would this look like applied to your business?

The same order of operations: fix the funnel before you scale the spend, structure campaigns to your actual service area instead of a broad radius, and route every lead into one system instead of three inboxes. If your cost per lead is high and you don’t know whether it’s the ad, the landing page, or the follow-up that’s actually broken, that diagnosis is the first thing a working session is for.