⚠️ Illustrative example — all figures and names here are fictional. It exists only to show the required case-study format.
Financial Services · مصر · Apr — Jun 2024 (10 weeks)
Lower cost per lead while keeping a qualification rate high enough for the sales team to actually call it.
- Meta Ads
- Google Search
- GTM
01
Business Challenge
Cost per lead looked low on paper, but 60% of numbers were wrong or duplicated, and the calling team wasted half its day. The form accepted any number in any format, with no verification.
02
Strategy
The capture point was rebuilt rather than the targeting: • Egyptian phone-format validation inside the form before submission. • Removing the “job title” field and cutting fields from six to three. • A two-step conversion event: click, then real submission. • Splitting campaigns by the financing type requested.
03
Execution
GTM was wired to a “valid lead” event fired once a number passed validation, and duplicates were pushed to a weekly exclusion list synced into the platform.
04
Optimization
Week 2: weekly exclusion list added (cut duplicate calls by 37%). Week 4: paused a campaign delivering well-formed but unreachable numbers. Week 6: focused 70% of budget on a single financing type. Week 9: tested two ad formats: before/after and a short video.
05
Results
| Metric | Value | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Cost per valid lead | EGP 74 | Spend ÷ numbers that passed validation and were not duplicates. |
| Valid number rate | 88% | Reachable numbers ÷ total forms (40% before). |
| Cost per signed client | —pending | Spend ÷ signed contracts — relies on sales data, pending verification. |
Attribution note: Signed contracts happen off-platform, weeks after the click, so they cannot be attributed to a specific campaign precisely. The cost shown is measured on “valid lead” only.
06
Key Learnings
Improving capture quality is cheaper and faster than improving targeting. Three hours on the form saved more than a month of audience tweaking.