United Purpose Lending
Ads Report
Enter your access code to view this report.
United Purpose Lending · Ads Performance
Quick View: My Read Going Into This Check-In
My own team's notes and considerations following this check-in.
Contact rate here means the share of assigned leads a rep has actually talked to (Made Contact or further), not just attempted, a stricter bar than prior check-ins used. William Wood is the only rep with a meaningful number. Cedric and Tyler, who looked strong under the old "attempted" definition, are thin once you require an actual conversation.
* Aaron's assigned leads are routed to Mariah, Tyler, and Chris to work per team process, so his 0% likely reflects reassignment, not inaction (confirmed on the 8/6 call). That explanation doesn't cover Chris, LaMarcus, Mariah, or Michael.
Leads by Stage
What "contacted" is made of. Consultation Scheduled and Nurturing both show real activity for the first time this check-in, mostly from William Wood.
| Stage | Unk. | Total |
|---|
How "contact rate" is calculated, and where it might be off
This number comes entirely from Surefire's Lifecycle Status field (New → Attempted Contact → Made Contact → Consultation Scheduled → Application Sent → Application Started → Nurturing), as pulled into Ethan's biweekly export. As of this check-in, "contact rate" means Made Contact or further, an actual conversation, not just Attempted Contact. That's a stricter bar than prior check-ins used, and I recomputed the Aug 20 baseline under this same definition for a fair comparison.
I don't have a confirmed update on the Surefire "Failed to Contact" status and attempt-count tracking discussed on the 8/6 call, so a 0% could still mean "talked to them but didn't log the stage change" rather than "never reached." That caveat matters more now than it did under the looser "attempted" definition, since a missed status update has a bigger effect on the number.
Real leads only. 1 FB test + 6 Google test/internal submissions removed. Sep 28 week is partial.
Google Ads platform data, n=60. Wednesday overtook Sunday as the top day this pull.
From lead-form answers (Sep 29 pull, n=121 Facebook / n=63 Google). Facebook's closeable-credit rate has dropped three check-ins running.
Campaign "Howard Hanna RES 2.0" · Pixel Lead Generation · cumulative Jun 1–Sep 29, same window as Google below. V2 won cumulatively at both Aug 6 and Aug 20; V1 has now pulled ahead on the full campaign too. Frequency 2.52–2.74, healthy and not fatigued.
| Ad set (cumulative) | Leads | Spend | CPL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase General – V1 | 52 | $1,516.91 | $29.17 |
| Purchase General – V2 | 48 | $1,541.42 | $32.11 |
rebel iQ's own Sep 23 Meta review independently flagged V2 softening and suggested a creative refresh; the Sep 29 report recommends prioritizing V1.
Cost Per Opportunity, Cumulative
| Ad set | Opp. | Spend | Cost/Opp. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchase General – V1 | 4 | $1,516.91 | $379.23 |
| Purchase General – V2 | 2 | $1,541.42 | $770.71 |
Now computable: Facebook's ad set report finally covers the same Jun 1–Sep 29 window as everything else. V1 wins on cost per opportunity by a wide margin, same story as raw CPL. Leads here use the ad platform's own count; the CRM join (Opportunity Tracking section below) shows slightly more rows per ad set, normal sync lag between platform and export.
Facebook and Google finally cover the same window this cycle, so this comparison is back on solid ground. Facebook wins on both raw CPL and cost per real opportunity.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Spend | $3,058.33 | $3,019.35 |
| Leads / Conversions | 100 | 60 |
| CPL | $30.58 | $50.32 |
| Opportunities (Made Contact, Consultation Scheduled, Application Sent/Started) | 6 | 5 |
| Cost / Opportunity | $509.72 | $603.87 |
Google's leads convert to a real opportunity at a slightly higher rate (7.9% vs. Facebook's 6.0%), but Facebook's overall cost advantage is large enough to win on both measures anyway.
Campaign "rebel iQ: Purchase (General) - PA" · Maximize Conversions · Jun 1–Sep 29. Cost-per-lead by active keyword (16 of 90 keywords have any spend).
rebel iQ's own Sep 1 review (a separate snapshot, Jul 30–Aug 31) showed cost/conversion at $37.60, a $29.69 improvement over the prior period, conversion rate up 7.31 points, CPC down $1.32. A meaningfully better recent trend than the Jun 1–Sep 29 blended $50.32 below suggests.
| Ad group | Conv. | Cost | CPL |
|---|
Jun 1–Sep 29. Same two measures: how often the ad shows (impression share) vs. how well it shows when it does (top-of-page rate).
Impression Share
Top of Page Rate
Same method as Aug 20: join CRM contact emails against the lead exports. Match rates this pull: 120 of 121 Facebook leads (99%), 59 of 63 Google leads (94%). "Opportunity" means Made Contact, Consultation Scheduled, Application Sent, or Application Started. Nurturing is not counted, it's a holding status, not an immediate opportunity.
Total opportunities: roughly 11 now, up from about 4 at Aug 20. William Wood accounts for most of the increase.
Google, by Keyword
| Keyword | Leads | Opp. | Cost/Opp. |
|---|
Facebook, by Ad Set
| Ad set | Leads | Opp. | Cost/Opp. |
|---|
Cost per opportunity is now computable since Facebook's ad set report covers the same Jun 1–Sep 29 window as everything else. Full comparison against Google in the Cost Efficiency section above.
Two honest caveats before reading too much into this
This is confounded by which LO the lead landed with, not just lead quality. Until the follow-up gap closes for the reps still flat, any keyword or ad-set "opportunity rate" is really measuring ad quality tangled up with which rep got the lead. Don't make budget calls off this table alone yet.
The email join keeps surfacing duplicate CRM contacts, 7 this pull (same person submitting twice, sometimes assigned to two different LOs). Corrected by keeping the furthest stage across duplicates each time, same fix as Aug 20.