Cross-Channel Lead Generation for Real Estate: Meta + Google Ads
₹15,772.75 managed across five campaigns — with 191 verified Meta leads and 773 Google Search clicks.
₹15,772.75
documented spend across five campaigns
191
verified Meta leads
773
Google Search clicks
5.85%
blended Google CTR
Context
A Patna-based residential real estate client, with paid acquisition activity documented across two platforms.
The exports record what each campaign spent and delivered. They do not record a common start and end date for every campaign, so nothing here should be read as a claim that all five campaigns were necessarily running concurrently.
- Client
- Patna-based residential real estate
- Platforms
- Meta Ads + Google Ads
- Campaigns
- 5 (2 Meta, 3 Google Search)
- Documented spend
- ₹15,772.75
Meta — two campaigns, 191 verified leads
| Campaign | Spend | Verified leads | Cost per lead |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balaji Leads | ₹5,595.49 | 181 | ₹30.91 |
| Balaji Exotica | ₹1,292.62 | 10 | ₹129.26 |
| Total Meta | ₹6,888.11 | 191 | — |
The two Meta campaigns produced very different cost per lead — ₹30.91 against ₹129.26 — on the same platform, for the same client, in the same market.
That spread is the useful part. It says the difference sits in the campaign itself: the project, the offer, the audience or the creative. Those are testable. A blended Meta average across both would have hidden it.
Google — three Search campaigns, 773 clicks
| Campaign | Spend | Clicks |
|---|---|---|
| Balaji Project Search | ₹6,700.07 | 646 |
| Search-5 | ₹1,814.01 | 111 |
| Search-2 | ₹370.56 | 16 |
| Total Google | ₹8,884.64 | 773 |
₹8,884.64
Google spend
773
clicks
₹11.49
blended CPC
13,216
impressions
5.85%
blended CTR
Not independently verifiedEvery figure above describes traffic, not outcomes. No lead count appears in this section because the account cannot supply a trustworthy one.
The two channels side by side
Meta
191
verified Meta leads
- Spend
- ₹6,888.11
- Campaigns
- 2
- Recorded outcome
- Lead form submissions
- Cost per recorded lead
- ₹30.91 – ₹129.26
773
Search clicks
- Spend
- ₹8,884.64
- Campaigns
- 3
- Recorded outcome
- Clicks, impressions, CTR, CPC
- Cost per recorded lead
- Not calculable
Google lead count is not verified from the available evidence.
These panels are deliberately not aligned into a single winner-versus-loser comparison. The two channels are being measured against different outcome definitions, and one of those definitions is not reliable in this dataset.
Why there is no cross-channel CPL here
Google conversion reporting is not reliable in this dataset. The campaign exports show conversion rates that cannot be reconciled with recorded click volume — figures such as 345%, 476% and 191%.
That rules out a Google cost per lead. It also rules out the comparison a client most often asks for: which channel produced cheaper leads.
The honest answer is that the question cannot be answered from this evidence, and answering it anyway — by dividing Google spend by Google clicks and calling the result a lead cost — would be the single most misleading thing this case study could do.
Reported Google conversion rates in this dataset
- 345%
- 476%
- 191%
A conversion rate is conversions divided by clicks. These figures cannot be reconciled with the recorded click volume, and the exports alone do not establish why.
- No Google CPL is calculated.
- The conversion denominator is not trustworthy.
- The 773 clicks are never called 773 leads.
- A click is not a lead.
- No Meta-versus-Google winner is declared.
- The two channels are not measured on the same outcome.
What this evidence does not establish
The evidence here covers spend and platform-recorded activity across two channels. It does not establish:
- Google lead count
- Google cost per lead
- Lead quality on either channel
- Which channel produced better business outcomes
- Site visits
- Bookings
- Sales
- Revenue
- ROAS or ROI
- True cost per acquisition
The exports also do not record a common start and end date for all five campaigns, so this is a record of documented activity across two platforms rather than a like-for-like comparison of two channels running side by side.
Takeaway
The strongest cross-channel lesson is measurement comparability.
Comparable today
- Spend
- Clicks
- CTR
- CPC
- Campaign structure
Not comparable yet
- Cost per lead across channels
- Lead quality across channels
- Which channel produced better business outcomes
Spend, clicks, click-through rate, cost per click and campaign structure can all be compared across channels today. They are measured the same way on both platforms.
Meaningful acquisition comparison needs something else: the same trustworthy outcome definition on both sides. Until a lead means the same thing in Meta and in Google — and until both platforms record it dependably — a cross-channel budget decision is being made on a number that only one channel actually has.
That is fixable, and fixing it is usually worth more than any bid adjustment made in the meantime.
Related
Services this evidences
Related case study
Auditing My Own Ad AccountsWhere the unreliable Google conversion reporting is documented.
Next case study
Scaling Meta Lead Generation in PatnaRead case study