Cost per lead down 71%,from around PLN 162 to 48,on a budget too small to guess with.
NewDataLabs has run webinars for B2B companies in Poland since 2015. Every sign-up is a lead, and the sign-ups worth paying for come from decision-makers. The media budget left no room for tests that go nowhere. This page walks through the account changes, the figures the original study publishes, and the one claim it makes without a figure.
- −71%
- average cost per lead
- PLN 48
- average cost per lead over a year, down from around PLN 162
- +31%
- click-through rate after the new creatives and animations
- Threefold
- growth in leads per month, counted by volume
Decision-makers to reach, and a budget that forgave nothing.
A narrow audience in a crowded market
The audience for a B2B webinar is a narrow slice of people who sign off on budgets. Reaching them precisely enough to get a registration took careful targeting, in a market where other companies were trying to reach the same people.
Every złoty had to pay for a lead
The campaigns ran on a relatively low media budget. Testing and scaling both came out of the same small pot, so a test that failed cost leads you would otherwise have bought.
An account that could not be read
The review before any change found no analytics in place and no single source of truth across the platforms. Campaign names followed no convention and audience combinations had never been tested. The creatives needed a refresh as well. Decisions were made without data because there was no data to make them with.
A hand-set price per lead and an account you can read.
Bidding models tested against each other
Several bidding models were tested. A bid cap won: a manually set limit on what the platform may pay to acquire a lead. It kept costs under control while the campaigns still pushed for the largest number of contacts under that limit.
Audiences tested in rounds, then Performance Max
Audience and bid combinations were tested iteratively until the most valuable segments were clear. A Performance Max campaign then went after the audiences most interested in the webinar subjects, and monthly lead volume grew as much as threefold.
One naming convention across the accounts
Campaign structure was rebuilt and every campaign and ad set got a name that follows the same rule. Comparing ad sets stopped requiring a decoder, and results became visible at ad set level.
New creatives and animations
Visuals and copy were rebuilt for the decision-makers the webinars are meant for, and animations were added to the ads. Click-through rate rose 31%, which the study attributes to this creative work.
From around 162 złoty a lead to 48 on average.
The study gives the starting cost per lead as around PLN 162 and the average across a year of work as PLN 48. Both figures are in złoty and describe the same metric, so they share one scale below.
The 71% headline and these bars describe the same fall. The starting figure is approximate, so do not expect the bars to divide to the exact percentage. Click-through rate is a different unit and moved the other way, so its 31% stays in the strip above. The threefold growth in monthly leads has no published base count, so there is nothing to draw. The study also says lead quality improved, and that Google Ads leads were better than Meta leads from the start, but it gives no measure for either. This page reports cost and volume, because those were counted.
Write your lead price into the bid before the platform picks one for you.
A bid cap turns your cost per lead from a number you read on Monday into a limit the platform has to respect. Here the manually set cap won the bidding test, and the average cost per lead over the year landed at PLN 48. On a small budget that limit decides how many tests you can afford before the money runs out.
Watch the other side of the cap. A price limit rewards whichever audience fills in the form cheapest, and the cheapest form is not always a buyer. If you copy this, count what happens to your leads after the form: how many attend the webinar, and how many your sales team would call back. That count tells you whether the cheaper lead was also the better one.
This work was delivered by MTA Group, which Zero Fluff Digital is part of, by the same specialists who would work on your account. Every figure here comes from the case study MTA published, republished here with their consent. The reviews behind it are public and verified on Clutch, where clients rate the work rather than the agency describing itself.
Is your cost per lead a limit or a figure you read afterwards?
30 minutes, no deck. You leave able to say how your bidding sets the price of a lead, and whether your reporting can tell a cheap lead from a good one.
Book a callNext case studyOslo Bilutleie: 53% more conversions on Google Ads →