How We Generated 597 Leads in 18 Days — and Cut Cost-Per-Lead by 4.6% Without Increasing Budget.

Full dashboard breakdowns are optimized for desktop and tablet viewing.

597 Total Leads	−4.6% Cost Reduction	Total CPL 11.8 SAR
Snap Conversion Rate 30%

Most paid campaigns follow the same playbook: spend more, get more leads. But what happens when you optimize the system — not the budget?

This is a detailed breakdown of an 18-day multi-platform paid media campaign we managed for Ladies Spa, a premium wellness brand in Saudi Arabia. The campaign ran across Google, Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta — and what the data revealed between Phase 1 and Phase 2 is something every performance marketer needs to understand.

We didn't increase the budget. We read the data, reallocated, and watched cost-per-lead drop while lead volume held steady.

Campaign Overview

The campaign objective was lead generation — driving qualified users to book spa services. It ran in two phases to allow data-informed optimization mid-flight.

Campaign Summary — Feb 1–18, 2026

Metric	Phase 1 (Feb 1–9)	Phase 2 (Feb 10–18)	Total
Total Impressions	623,034	553,541	1,176,575
Total Clicks	13,131	9,796	22,927
Total Spend (SAR)	3,689.97	3,363.72	7,053.69
Total Leads	~300	~297	597
Avg. Daily Spend (SAR)	391.33		—
Best Performing Platform	Google Ads — 66.5% of leads

Platform-by-Platform Breakdown

Running four platforms simultaneously means budget allocation is everything. Here's how each platform performed over the full 18 days:

Lead Volume by Platform

Google 397 leads

Snapchat 132 leads

TikTok 47 leads

Meta 21 leads

Platform Performance — Full Campaign

Platform	Leads	Share	Total Spend (SAR)	Assessment
Google Ads	397	66.5%	858.41	Top Performer
Snapchat	132	22.1%	3,375.00	Growing
TikTok	47	7.9%	1,020.22	Early Stage
Meta	21	3.5%	1,800.06	Needs Review

The critical observation: Meta received the second-highest spend in Phase 1 (SAR 1,190.92) but delivered only 21 total leads across the entire campaign — a significant efficiency gap that informed Phase 2 reallocation decisions.

Phase 1 vs. Phase 2: What the Data Revealed

The true story of this campaign lives in the comparison between Phase 1 (Feb 1–9) and Phase 2 (Feb 10–18). Same objective, same total lead target of 100 per phase,but different execution.

Phase 1 (Feb 1–9)

Impressions	623,034
Clicks	13,131
Total Spend	SAR 3,689.97
Leads	100
Meta Spend	SAR 1,190.92
Google Spend	SAR 412.01

Phase 2 (Feb 10–18)

Impressions	553,541
Clicks	9,796
Total Spend	SAR 3,363.72
Leads	100
Meta Spend	SAR 609.14
Google Spend	SAR 446.40

Phase 2 achieved the same lead target as Phase 1 — but spent SAR 326.25 less to do it. That's a 4.6% reduction in total spend with identical output. Not by magic. By reading the data from Phase 1 and acting on it.

Google Ads: The Hidden MVP of This Campaign

The biggest insight of this campaign wasn't obvious at first glance. Google Ads generated 397 out of 597 total leads — a 66.5% contribution — while receiving a fraction of the total budget compared to Snapchat and Meta.

The reason? Get Directions campaigns. A campaign type that many marketers overlook in favor of conversion-focused formats. For a physical spa location, users searching with local intent and clicking "Get Directions" represent high-purchase-intent prospects — they're not browsing. They're deciding.

Google Ads — Efficiency Analysis

Period	Spend (SAR)	Clicks	Lead Share	Efficiency vs Meta
Phase 1	412.01	9,824	66.5% of total	~5x more efficient
Phase 2	446.40	9,111	Maintained dominance	Consistent ROI

Why Get Directions Campaigns Outperformed

Unlike display or discovery campaigns. Get Directions ads appear when users are actively searching for services in a specific area. The intent signal is far stronger — a user clicking "Get Directions" has mentally committed to visiting. This translates directly into:

• Lower cost per qualified lead

• Higher show-up rate (intent is location-specific)

• Better relevance score → lower CPC over time

• Zero wasted impressions on non-local audiences

Google delivered 66.5% of all leads on roughly 12% of the total campaign budget. That's the kind of efficiency gap that should immediately change how you allocate spend.

Snapchat: Showing Growth Trajectory

Snapchat was the highest-spend platform at SAR 3,375 across both phases — but it was also the platform that showed the clearest positive trajectory within the campaign window.

Snapchat — Phase-over-Phase Performance

Metric	Phase 1	Phase 2	Change
Impressions	29,016	28,402	−2.1%
Clicks	206	223	+8.3%
Spend (SAR)	1,687.5	1,687.5	Flat

With flat spend and growing clicks, Snapchat's click-through rate improved in Phase 2 —

a sign that creative fatigue was being managed and targeting was tightening. The platform remains important for brand awareness and reaching the 18–34 Saudi demographic.

Meta: The Efficiency Problem That Changed Phase 2

Meta's performance in Phase 1 was the clearest signal for mid-campaign action. Despite receiving SAR 1,190.92 in Phase 1 — the second-highest platform budget — it delivered a disproportionately low share of total leads.

The response in Phase 2 was decisive: Meta spend was cut by nearly 49% to SAR 609.14, with the reallocation going toward proven performers. Total leads remained at 100 in

Phase 2, confirming the reallocation was the right call.

Meta — Budget vs. Results

Phase	Spend (SAR)	Impressions	Clicks	Lead Share
Phase 1	1,190.92	63,038	2,863	Low
Phase 2	609.14	17,104	133	Proportional

Meta still has value in the marketing mix — particularly for retargeting and awareness. But without conversion tracking properly calibrated for this audience and offer, it cannot justify top-of-budget allocation in a lead generation context.

5 Lessons from This Campaign

• 1 Data between phases is more valuable than data at campaign end. The 9-day checkpoint gave us real signals to act on — not post-mortems. Build optimization windows into every campaign from day one.

• 2 Google's Get Directions campaigns are underutilized for physical locations. For any brick-and-mortar business, local intent campaigns consistently outperform awareness-based formats on a cost-per-visit basis.

• 3 Platform spend should follow performance, not assumptions. Meta's brand familiarity can bias marketers toward over-allocating budget. Let the numbers decide, not the platform's reputation.

• 4 Holding lead volume flat while cutting spend is real optimization. Phase 2 achieved the same 100-lead target with SAR 326 less spent. That's 4.6% efficiency gain without touching creative, copy, or targeting structure.

• 5 1.17 million impressions mean nothing without quality signal routing. The average daily spend of SAR 391.33 was distributed efficiently because we monitored platform-level CPL daily — not weekly.

Final Thought

This campaign ran for 18 days. It generated 597 leads, 22,927 clicks, and over 1.17 million impressions on a combined budget of SAR 7,053.69. The numbers are solid — but the real result was the system: a data-reading process that made Phase 2 more efficient than Phase 1 without adding a single riyal to the budget.

The best optimization lever in paid media isn't a better ad. It's a better reading of what the data is already telling you — and the discipline to act on it before the campaign ends.

Mohammed Yasir, a Digital Marketing Specialist currently pursuing CIM Level 4 certification, with hands-on experience managing multi-platform paid campaigns across Google, Snapchat, TikTok, and Meta in the Saudi market.