Plywood brand: 16,389 conversions at ₹7.96 across Meta and Google

The business and the challenge

A plywood brand selling through dealers and a physical store. Plywood is a considered purchase with a long gap between first awareness and a buying decision, and most of the decision happens offline — someone walks into a store, touches the product and asks the dealer. That makes the usual lead-generation playbook a poor fit. Counting Instant Form submissions would have measured the wrong thing entirely.

Objective

Build familiarity cheaply at the top, capture the people already searching, and drive measurable footfall to the store — rather than force enquiries from an audience that was not ready to give them.

Strategy

Split the two platforms by job. Meta carried awareness and engagement, where attention is cheap and the brand needed to be seen repeatedly by the same local audience. Google carried demand capture and local action — the searches, the direction requests, the calls. The two were never expected to produce comparable numbers, and the reporting was set up to keep them separate.

Execution

On Meta, 74 creatives across 12 campaigns — mostly engagement and interaction objectives on ₹200 daily budgets, with a single lead campaign running alongside as a control. On Google, a Performance Max campaign on target CPA, two Smart campaigns on maximise clicks, and a separate Performance Max campaign specifically for local store visits and promotions.

Performance data

Results

Google delivered 16,389 conversions at ₹7.96 with a 13.17% conversion rate on ₹1,30,535 of spend, including 859 local store-visit conversions at ₹7.02. Meta delivered 2.75M impressions to 1.9M people at engagement costs between two paise and sixty-two paise, plus 278 Instant Form leads at ₹12.53 and 287 messaging conversations from the one lead campaign.

What we learned

The two platforms answer different questions, and the reporting has to respect that. ₹0.02 per post engagement and ₹7.96 per conversion cannot be blended into one number. We report them separately, every month, even though a single blended figure would look more impressive.

"Conversions" needs defining before it is quoted. The 16,389 Google conversions include local actions — direction requests and calls — not only form fills. That is the right metric for a store-led business, and it is also why this number should never be compared against a Meta form-lead count from another agency's deck.

Engagement at sub-rupee cost is worth buying in a considered category. In a market where the purchase happens in a shop, being familiar before the customer walks in is worth more than an enquiry form from someone who was not going to buy yet.

Budget pauses look like collapses in a two-year chart. The sharp spike and drop in the clicks chart is a budget pause, not a performance failure. We have left it visible rather than cropping the screenshot, because that is the kind of edit that makes portfolio data untrustworthy.

Campaign screenshots

Client names, campaign names, ad names and creative thumbnails are blurred. Every performance figure is unedited.

What you're looking at: Campaign mix for the plywood account: Performance Max on Target CPA, two Smart campaigns on maximise clicks, and a local store-visit Performance Max campaign. 16,389 conversions at ₹7.96 and a 13.17% conversion rate. Note that "conversions" here include local actions such as direction requests and calls, not only form fills — which is why this number is not comparable with a Meta form-lead count.

What you're looking at: The local store-visit campaign on its own: 859 conversions at ₹7.02 actual CPA from ₹6,031.45. Google flags that conversion data for the most recent days may be incomplete, which is why we read CPA on a trailing window rather than day by day.

What you're looking at: Two years of Google Ads for the same plywood brand. ₹1.26 average CPC across 104K clicks. The chart shows a sharp spike and drop — that is a budget pause, not a performance collapse, and it is the kind of thing worth naming rather than cropping out of a screenshot.

What you're looking at: Campaign-level Meta view for a plywood brand. Eleven of the twelve campaigns are engagement and traffic objectives running at ₹0.05 to ₹1.45 per action; one is a lead campaign delivering 278 Instant Form leads at ₹12.53. The split is deliberate — in a considered-purchase category like plywood, Meta is cheaper at building familiarity than at forcing an enquiry.

What you're looking at: All 74 ads in the account. Post engagement costs run from ₹0.02 to ₹0.62, interactions around ₹0.25 to ₹0.62. These are not lead numbers and should never be presented as such — they measure attention, not intent. Shown here because the volume of creative tested is itself the point.

What you're looking at: The two ads in the account with a lead objective, filtered out of the 74. ₹4,655.57 produced 278 Instant Form leads and 287 messaging conversations. Two different actions, so no blended cost per lead is shown — combining them would be misleading.

Frequently asked questions

Related work

Performance figures on this page come from selected campaigns and reporting periods in our portfolio records through September 2026. Several screenshots are filtered views of the same ad account, so totals are calculated from distinct accounts only. Results vary with market, budget, targeting, offer, competition and sales follow-up.