Electrical Panel Upgrade Meta Ads: 56 Leads at $61 CPL
An anonymized Los Angeles electrical contractor used Facebook and Instagram ads to generate demand for residential panel upgrades.
$3,388.50 in ad spend
56 leads at $60.51 per lead
17 leads marked Booked in the lead tracker
Reporting window: July 29 - October 23, 2023, across two campaign flights with a pause in between.
Alexey Beletsky and team ran the lead-generation campaign, built service-specific offers and tracked performance through to booking status. This case measures acquisition and booked leads; confirmed sales and revenue are not established by the report.
$3,388.50 in ad spend
56 leads at $60.51 per lead
17 leads marked Booked in the lead tracker
Reporting window: July 29 - October 23, 2023, across two campaign flights with a pause in between.
Alexey Beletsky and team ran the lead-generation campaign, built service-specific offers and tracked performance through to booking status. This case measures acquisition and booked leads; confirmed sales and revenue are not established by the report.
The Challenge: Generate Demand for Panel Upgrades
The client was an anonymized electrical services business in the Los Angeles market. The campaign focused on residential electrical panel upgrades, a service the project retrospective describes as a $4,000-$5,000 purchase. The goal was to create a measurable source of homeowner inquiries and understand what happened after those inquiries reached the sales team.
A specific service to sell
A general electrician message would not explain why a homeowner should act. The offer needed to connect an aging panel with a concrete upgrade assessment, while giving the customer a clear next step.
A considered purchase
A panel upgrade involves a technical assessment, price comparison and, in some cases, meter-spot or permit requirements. A form submission begins that process; it does not prove that a homeowner is ready to buy.
A measurable acquisition test
The business needed visibility into spend, leads and booking status across two campaign flights. That meant using a service-specific offer and tracking follow-up beyond the advertising platform.
A gap between bookings and sales
The supplied retrospective says the generated leads did not become closed deals. That makes this a useful acquisition case and a sales-conversion diagnostic, with no claim of proven revenue or profitability.
What We Did: Offer, Audience and Follow-Up
The supplied workbook documents the offers, audience settings, delivery data and lead-management process. The following describes what is supported by those records.
A service-specific offer
Built the campaign around electrical panel upgrades instead of a broad list of electrical services. The message connected the offer with the homeowner's need for an upgrade assessment.
A concrete estimate incentive
Used a free-estimate offer with a choice of a 10% discount or $300 off. The later creative also offered help with the meter-spot request and included a city permit when the customer chose the contractor.
Documented 2023 targeting
Used the documented 2023 audience setup: ages 30-65+, English-language audiences and income-based ZIP targeting across Los Angeles and surrounding Southern California markets. These are historical settings, not a current targeting recommendation.
Useful lead context
Collected the offer, ZIP code and preferred callback time alongside each inquiry so the sales team had context for the first conversation. Customer identities are excluded from this published case.
Structured follow-up
Used a lead tracker with booking statuses, call attempts and SMS/email follow-up fields across Days 1, 2, 3 and 10. Notes record both contact attempts and practical obstacles such as estimates and meter-spot requirements.
Performance reporting
Reviewed daily and weekly spend and lead volume across the two flights. The workbook supports period-level analysis; it does not provide an ad-by-ad performance breakdown that would identify a winning creative.
The Results: 56 Leads and 17 Booked Statuses
Totals below are recalculated from dated rows in the Daily tab, excluding subtotal rows. Booking status comes from the supplied lead-management snapshot. The campaign ran July 29 - August 24 and September 22 - October 23, 2023.
- $3,388.50Total ad spend across the two campaign flights
- 56Electrical panel upgrade leads generated
- $60.51Weighted cost per lead: total spend / 56 leads
- 17Tracker records marked Booked, or 30.4% of the 56 records
- $199.32Spend per Booked record; not cost per acquired customer
- $30.36Best full-week CPL: 14 leads from $425, October 2-8
The weekly report this case is built on, July 29 - October 23, 2023: $3,389 in ad spend, 70,340 impressions and 56 electrical panel upgrade leads at a $60.51 average cost per lead. Rows are recalculated from the dated daily rows; the campaign was paused between August 25 and September 21. The revenue and ROAS columns were never filled.
What the twelve weeks bought: $3,389 in spend, 70,340 impressions, 56 electrical panel upgrade leads at $60.51 and 17 of those leads marked Booked in the client's lead tracker. Booking status is a tracker status, not a confirmed sale - the report records no revenue or ROAS.
The Key Insight
The campaign answered the acquisition question it was funded to answer: $3,389 bought 56 electrical panel upgrade inquiries at $60.51 each, and 17 of them reached a Booked status in the client's tracker. What the same data also shows is where the money actually stopped - and it was not in the ad account.
Three things drove it.
The channel repeated itself after a month off. The campaign ran as two separate flights with a 29-day pause between them. Flight one, July 29 - August 24: $1,909 and 31 leads at $62. Flight two, September 22 - October 23: $1,480 and 25 leads at $59. Same offer, same audience settings, restarted from cold - and the cost per lead landed within three dollars of itself. A channel that reproduces its own number after a pause is one you can plan a budget around; a single good month is not.
The weekly spread matters more than the average. The $60.51 average hides a four-fold range. The best full week, October 2-8, bought 14 leads at $30. The two weeks either side of it ran $107 and $112 on similar budgets, and the closing week of the first flight ran $99. Nothing structural changed between them. That spread is where the next dollar of optimisation lives - and because the workbook has no ad-level breakdown, identifying which creative earned the $30 week is exactly what the next test has to be built to answer.
The leak was after the form, not before it. Seventeen of 56 records - 30.4% - reached Booked, which is $199.32 of ad spend per booked appointment on a service the client prices at $4,000-$5,000. Yet the project retrospective records no closed deals. The tracker notes say why: estimates issued in the $2K-$7K range and left unanswered, jobs blocked behind a meter-spot request, homeowners who had already had the work done elsewhere. Those are sales and operations problems with sales and operations fixes. More traffic would not have touched any of them.
And the honest limit of this report: it measures acquisition, not revenue. Spend, impressions, reach, leads and booking status are recorded; clicks, CTR, CPC and CPM are not, and the revenue and ROAS columns were never filled. So this case can prove what a panel-upgrade lead costs in Los Angeles and how many of them a sales team can get on the calendar. It cannot prove what any of them were worth. The next version of this campaign is not a bigger budget - it is ad-level reporting so the $30 week can be repeated, a faster and firmer follow-up on issued estimates, and closed-won revenue in a CRM so the next $3,000 can be judged on signed jobs instead of booked slots.
Three things drove it.
The channel repeated itself after a month off. The campaign ran as two separate flights with a 29-day pause between them. Flight one, July 29 - August 24: $1,909 and 31 leads at $62. Flight two, September 22 - October 23: $1,480 and 25 leads at $59. Same offer, same audience settings, restarted from cold - and the cost per lead landed within three dollars of itself. A channel that reproduces its own number after a pause is one you can plan a budget around; a single good month is not.
The weekly spread matters more than the average. The $60.51 average hides a four-fold range. The best full week, October 2-8, bought 14 leads at $30. The two weeks either side of it ran $107 and $112 on similar budgets, and the closing week of the first flight ran $99. Nothing structural changed between them. That spread is where the next dollar of optimisation lives - and because the workbook has no ad-level breakdown, identifying which creative earned the $30 week is exactly what the next test has to be built to answer.
The leak was after the form, not before it. Seventeen of 56 records - 30.4% - reached Booked, which is $199.32 of ad spend per booked appointment on a service the client prices at $4,000-$5,000. Yet the project retrospective records no closed deals. The tracker notes say why: estimates issued in the $2K-$7K range and left unanswered, jobs blocked behind a meter-spot request, homeowners who had already had the work done elsewhere. Those are sales and operations problems with sales and operations fixes. More traffic would not have touched any of them.
And the honest limit of this report: it measures acquisition, not revenue. Spend, impressions, reach, leads and booking status are recorded; clicks, CTR, CPC and CPM are not, and the revenue and ROAS columns were never filled. So this case can prove what a panel-upgrade lead costs in Los Angeles and how many of them a sales team can get on the calendar. It cannot prove what any of them were worth. The next version of this campaign is not a bigger budget - it is ad-level reporting so the $30 week can be repeated, a faster and firmer follow-up on issued estimates, and closed-won revenue in a CRM so the next $3,000 can be judged on signed jobs instead of booked slots.
Free Consultation Request
Watch the welcome video.
I explain the marketing problems companies run into most often, and when I can genuinely help.
I explain the marketing problems companies run into most often, and when I can genuinely help.
Watch the short welcome video before you fill out the form
Please fill out every field carefully so that I or my assistant can get in touch with you.