Unpaid case-study campaign
The placement audit that exposed wasted spend.
A painter campaign was generating an expensive blended result. Placement-level data showed that roughly three-quarters of the budget was going to placements that had produced zero leads.
- ~3/4
- of budget was reaching zero-lead placements before the fix
- $19
- documented cost per lead after placement waste was cut
- 48 hrs
- campaign rebuild context in the reconciled record
01 / Initial problem
The blended number hid the placement problem.
The campaign's overall cost looked weak, but the account-level average did not explain why. A placement breakdown showed that approximately 75.6% of spend had gone to Facebook placements that produced zero leads in that campaign snapshot.
02 / Intervention
Read the placements, cut the waste, rebuild the controls.
The zero-performing placement mix was cut the same day. The campaign was rebuilt around the producing inventory, with a zero-performer shutoff, frequency guard, and cost-per-lead alert added to the operating rules.
03 / Result
The corrected cost per lead was $19.
The producing Instagram placement recorded $76.33 in spend and four leads, or $19.08 per lead. Within the 48-hour rebuild context, the record also shows two leads, one booked estimate, and CPM moving from roughly $41 toward $33.
04 / Limitation
The lesson is to audit, not to assume.
This does not mean Instagram is universally better than Facebook. Another Luxon case-study campaign had a Facebook Reels placement perform strongly. The durable method is placement-level inspection, controlled changes, and lead-quality feedback.