Technician Hiring Meta Ads: 1,170 Applicants at $9.75 CPL
An anonymized U.S. home service company used Facebook and Instagram hiring ads to recruit experienced appliance repair, HVAC, air duct cleaning, plumbing and electrical technicians across many metro areas.
$11,402 in ad spend over 21 always-on months
1,170 technician applicants at $9.75 per lead
Cost per lead down from $11.44 in 2024 to $8.50 in 2025 and $6.12 in Q4 2025
Reporting window: April 11, 2024 - December 31, 2025.
Alexey Beletsky and team ran the recruiting campaigns, built the job offer and the screening form and tracked every applicant to a hiring status. This case measures recruiting performance; revenue and ROAS are not part of the report.
$11,402 in ad spend over 21 always-on months
1,170 technician applicants at $9.75 per lead
Cost per lead down from $11.44 in 2024 to $8.50 in 2025 and $6.12 in Q4 2025
Reporting window: April 11, 2024 - December 31, 2025.
Alexey Beletsky and team ran the recruiting campaigns, built the job offer and the screening form and tracked every applicant to a hiring status. This case measures recruiting performance; revenue and ROAS are not part of the report.
The Challenge: Hiring Skilled Technicians in Many Cities on a Tight Budget
The client was an anonymized U.S. home service company whose jobs are done by commission-paid field technicians. For a business like this, technicians are the capacity: a city without a tech means jobs turned away. The channel had to bring in applicants every month on a small, steady budget.
Skilled techs are scarce
Experienced appliance repair and HVAC technicians rarely look at job boards. Most already have work, so the offer has to reach them in the feed.
Many cities at once
The company was hiring in many U.S. metros at the same time. Posting job by job and city by city is slow and expensive.
Commission roles need the right profile
The jobs paid a share of each job, so they only suited people with real experience and their own car and tools.
A tight, steady budget
The account ran on about $540 a month. It had to keep applicants coming every month and get cheaper over time, without budget spikes.
What We Did: Offer-Led Hiring Ads With Screening Built In
The client workbook records the ad copy, the lead form answers, the daily delivery data and a status for every applicant. The following describes what those records support.
Offer-led hiring ads
Ads ran from several employer brand pages, each leading with a concrete offer: a commission split (30 to 40 percent in the ad copy), a flexible schedule, back-office support and steady work.
Screening built into the form
The lead form asked whether the applicant had a car and tools, how many years of experience they had and the best time to call. Trade-specific questions were added where they mattered.
Nationwide and city-level campaigns
Broad nationwide targeting ran alongside campaigns aimed at specific cities. According to the strategic review, both produced a steady flow of technician applicants.
Expansion into more trades
Once appliance repair was working, the same approach was used to recruit HVAC, plumbing, electrical and air duct cleaning technicians.
A status for every applicant
Every applicant was logged with a trade, a location and a hiring status: no answer, not a fit, not interested, manager interview, approved, onboarded.
Daily reporting on a flat budget
Spend, impressions, clicks, leads and cost per lead were tracked day by day with weekly subtotals. The budget stayed at about $540 a month while the account was tuned for a lower cost per lead.
The Results: 1,170 Applicants and a Cost per Lead That Kept Falling
Ad metrics are recalculated from the dated daily rows of the client report, April 11, 2024 - December 31, 2025, excluding weekly subtotal rows. Hiring outcomes are status tags in the client lead log for the same window.
- $9.75Cost per applicant over 21 always-on months: $11,402 in spend, 1,170 technician applicants
- -26%Year-over-year drop in cost per lead on the same budget: $11.44 in 2024, $8.50 in 2025
- $6.12Cost per lead in Q4 2025, the best quarter: 231 applicants from $1,413 at a 2.29% CTR
- 88Applicants who reached a manager interview, about $130 in ad spend per interview
- 13Technicians onboarded or hired from these applicants, about $877 in ad spend per tech in the field
- $2.96Best full-week cost per applicant: 24 applicants from $71, May 19-25, 2025
The report this case is built on, April 11, 2024 - December 31, 2025: $11,402 in spend delivered 1,170 technician applicants at $9.75 per lead. Cost per lead fell to $6.12 in Q4 2025, the best quarter. Rows are recalculated from the dated daily rows; applicant data and employer pages are removed, and no revenue or ROAS was recorded.
Month by month: on a budget of about $540 a month, cost per lead fell from $11.44 in 2024 to $8.50 in 2025, and applicants grew 36%. The account finished strongest: 90 applicants at $5.29 in December 2025 and $6.12 for the whole of Q4 2025.
Where the applicants went: of 1,175 technicians logged, 88 reached a manager interview and 13 were onboarded or hired - about $130 in ad spend per interview and $877 per technician in the field. The biggest drop-off was follow-up: 47% never answered the first call. Counts are status tags in the client lead log; personal data removed.
The Key Insight
The campaign answered the question it was funded to answer: Meta Ads can keep a home service company supplied with technician applicants on a small, steady budget. Over 21 always-on months, $11,402 bought 1,170 applicants at $9.75 each. Those applicants produced 88 manager interviews and 13 onboarded technicians. The same data also shows why it worked, and where the next gains are.
Three things stand out.
The account got cheaper as it matured. Spend barely moved from 2024 to 2025 ($5,664 vs. $5,738). Applicants grew 36%, from 495 to 675, and cost per lead fell 26%, from $11.44 to $8.50. The final quarter was the strongest of all: 231 applicants at $6.12 with a 2.29% CTR, more than twice the applicants of the same quarter a year earlier, on less spend. None of that came from a bigger budget.
A technician in the field cost about $877 in ads. That is $11,402 divided by the 13 applicants recorded as onboarded or hired. Each manager interview cost about $130. For a company paid by the job, that's the full ad cost of adding one more working technician. The number is based on the status tags in the lead log, not on payroll data.
The bottleneck moved from ads to follow-up. 47% of applicants never answered the first call, and another 24% turned out not to be a fit. Among applicants who gave their experience, 75% reported three or more years. But fewer than half of those who answered the equipment question had both a car and tools. The strategic review names the same reasons: missed follow-up calls, not enough experience, and no tools or transportation. At under $10 an applicant, the ad account is not the constraint. The recruiter's phone and the job requirements in the ad are.
And the honest limit of this report: it measures recruiting, not revenue. Spend, impressions, clicks, leads and hiring status are all recorded. Revenue per technician, retention and ROAS are not. The next step for this channel isn't a bigger budget. It's creatives that state the requirements up front, knock-out questions with an instant callback for strong applicants, and cost per onboarded technician as the number that decides which cities and trades get more spend.
Three things stand out.
The account got cheaper as it matured. Spend barely moved from 2024 to 2025 ($5,664 vs. $5,738). Applicants grew 36%, from 495 to 675, and cost per lead fell 26%, from $11.44 to $8.50. The final quarter was the strongest of all: 231 applicants at $6.12 with a 2.29% CTR, more than twice the applicants of the same quarter a year earlier, on less spend. None of that came from a bigger budget.
A technician in the field cost about $877 in ads. That is $11,402 divided by the 13 applicants recorded as onboarded or hired. Each manager interview cost about $130. For a company paid by the job, that's the full ad cost of adding one more working technician. The number is based on the status tags in the lead log, not on payroll data.
The bottleneck moved from ads to follow-up. 47% of applicants never answered the first call, and another 24% turned out not to be a fit. Among applicants who gave their experience, 75% reported three or more years. But fewer than half of those who answered the equipment question had both a car and tools. The strategic review names the same reasons: missed follow-up calls, not enough experience, and no tools or transportation. At under $10 an applicant, the ad account is not the constraint. The recruiter's phone and the job requirements in the ad are.
And the honest limit of this report: it measures recruiting, not revenue. Spend, impressions, clicks, leads and hiring status are all recorded. Revenue per technician, retention and ROAS are not. The next step for this channel isn't a bigger budget. It's creatives that state the requirements up front, knock-out questions with an instant callback for strong applicants, and cost per onboarded technician as the number that decides which cities and trades get more spend.
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.