Introducing What This Is

This case study is based on an internal call between Adam (Senior Google Ads Strategist) and Stephen (Co-Founder at Salt Water Digital), where they review live Google Ads data for an online tutoring company focused on TEF/TCF exam preparation.

Rather than a traditional “before and after,” this is a real-time walkthrough of how the campaign was structured, how it evolved, and what was learned through testing different landing page experiences, conversion paths, and qualification strategies. We hope you find this approach both informative and engaging.

For a Full Summary, Click Here.

Let’s Get Started

This account sits in the online tutoring space, focused on helping users prepare for language exams required for immigration.

The key detail here: this wasn’t a brand new campaign. It had already worked once.

The 2025 Version: Simple Funnel, Strong Results

Stephen:

We actually ran this campaign last year.

In 2025, the funnel looked like this:

• Click ad
• Land on page
• Fill out form
• Book a call (Calendly)

Total spend: approximately $1,500

Results:

36 form submissions
26 calls booked

Cost per booked call was strong, especially considering the customer lifetime value was over $1,000.

The Problem: Too Many “Unqualified” Leads

Despite being profitable, the client had a concern.

Stephen:

A lot of folks, when they learned how expensive it was, they weren’t interested anymore.

The issue wasn’t volume. It was qualification.

Users were filling out forms, booking calls, and then dropping off when they heard pricing.

So the client wanted to reduce friction and improve lead quality.

The 2026 Change: Remove the Sales Step

Instead of:

Form → Call → Sale

They moved to:

Questionnaire → Pricing → Sign Up

Stephen:

They wanted to streamline it and take the salesperson out of it.

The new landing page walked users through a questionnaire, recommended a program, showed pricing (starting around $350–$500/month), and asked users to sign up directly.

No call required.

What Happened?

Drop-off.

Stephen:

Everybody was dropping off when they got to the sign up.

Users were clicking ads, completing the questionnaire, seeing pricing, and leaving without converting.

The Insight: Some Sales Processes Exist for a Reason

Stephen:

For something that costs $350 to $500 a month, it’s unlikely someone just signs up without talking to someone.

This is where theory meets reality.

Reducing friction can improve performance in some cases. But for higher-ticket, trust-based purchases, people often want:

• Reassurance
• Human interaction
• The ability to ask questions

Removing the sales step didn’t streamline the funnel. It broke it.

The Pivot: Bring Back the Call (But Test It Properly)

Instead of guessing, we tested it.

Stephen:

We created an experiment where both versions led to booking a call.

The setup:

Variant A: Landing page WITH pricing → Book a call
Variant B: Landing page WITHOUT pricing → Book a call

Same funnel. Only difference was when pricing was introduced.

The Results (Early Data)

Stephen:

In the last month, the campaign without pricing has 26 calls booked. The one with pricing has 8.

Same spend.

At first glance, the no-pricing version appears to be the winner.

But that’s not the full picture.

The Catch: Volume ≠ Quality

Stephen:

You can’t just look at which one has more calls booked. You have to know if the quality is the same.

This is where many advertisers go wrong.

They optimize for:

Cost per conversion
Volume

But ignore:

Lead quality
Close rate

The next step was to track which calls came from each variation and evaluate downstream performance.

“Less Can Be More”

Adam:

Sometimes less can be more.

More calls do not necessarily mean better results.

Fewer, higher-quality calls may lead to better outcomes, especially if the client has limited capacity to handle inbound leads.

The Role of Micro Conversions

This account used micro conversions such as users progressing through the funnel and reaching the booking stage.

Adam:

It’s important to know what your conversions are. You could be misled.

These micro conversions helped identify where users were dropping off and confirmed that the issue wasn’t traffic quality, but the final conversion step.

Stephen:

If we didn’t have that data, we might not have gotten here.

Keyword Strategy: Control First, Then Expand

The campaign initially used exact match keywords only, with two core ad groups:

High intent (exam prep, tutoring)
Mid intent (learn French, improve French)

Stephen:

Phrase match was too crazy. Too much junk.

Once the campaign generated consistent volume (30+ conversions per month), the next step was to expand into phrase match and introduce a Target CPA strategy to scale.

Search Impression Share Insight

Stephen:

We had over 50% search impression share nationally.

This was achieved through tight keyword control and sufficient search volume.

Expanding match types would likely reduce impression share but increase overall reach and volume.

The Real Lesson: Funnel Design Drives Performance

Stephen:

Sometimes changes don’t make incremental improvements. They completely change the outcome.

This was one of those cases.

The shift from direct signup to call booking transformed the campaign from zero conversions to 30+ calls per month.

Same traffic. Same keywords. Different funnel.

The Human Factor

In this niche, users often want a one-on-one interaction before committing to a higher-cost service.

This applies beyond tutoring. Even in local services, some users prefer to speak with someone before making a decision.

Forcing all users into a single conversion path can limit performance.

Final Takeaways

• Removing friction does not always improve conversions
• Higher-ticket services often require human interaction
• Funnel structure can have a greater impact than traffic quality
• Micro conversions help diagnose performance issues
• Volume metrics alone can be misleading
• Testing requires both data and critical thinking