FY 2023–24
1,903 leads
60% qualification rate
Performance Marketing Case Study
How Labkafe rebuilt B2B lead generation across Google and Meta Ads.
B2B Education
Lead Generation
Google Ads
Meta Ads
A three-financial-year performance marketing transformation — from unreliable conversion tracking and declining lead flow to 6,514 annual leads with qualification recovering to 59%.
Client
Duration
FY 2023–24 to FY 2025–26
Primary channels
Google Ads · Meta Ads
Geography
Pan India
Result at a glance
Three years. One very different growth curve.
The raw lead numbers show the shift clearly. FY 2024–25 declined from the previous year, while FY 2025–26 became the strongest lead-generation year in the period.
FY 2024–25
1,688 leads
48% qualification rate
FY 2025–26
6,514 leads
59% qualification rate
The challenge
Lead volume was only part of the problem.
The bigger issue was that the acquisition system could not clearly distinguish real business outcomes from noisy platform activity. That made budget decisions harder and sales follow-up less efficient.
01
Lead volume was declining
Annual leads fell from 1,903 to 1,688, while qualification dropped from 60% to 48%.
02
Google reporting was misleading
The account showed roughly 239,000 “conversions”, but many were micro-events such as page views, video views and scrolls rather than actual leads.
03
Meta had barely been tested
Only ₹9,413 had been spent on Meta in FY 2024–25, with just 8 tracked leads. The channel had not yet been used as a serious acquisition engine.
04
Lead quality needed its own framework
With a 52% junk-lead rate in FY 2024–25, high volume alone would not solve the sales team's problem.
What the data revealed
The channels were not equally broken.
The diagnosis changed the strategy. Google needed cleaner measurement. Meta needed a real test. Lead quality needed to be treated as a campaign signal, not only a sales complaint.
Campaign optimisation was being influenced by non-lead actions, which made reported performance look far better than the actual pipeline.
239Kreported “conversions” in the old setup
The low spend and limited lead activity were not enough evidence to judge the channel's real B2B potential.
₹9.4KFY 2024–25 Meta spend
Campaign optimisation had to account for whether leads were useful to sales, not simply whether a form was submitted.
52%junk-lead rate in FY 2024–25
What I changed
Fix the signal first. Then scale what works.
The strategy was less about adding more campaigns and more about improving measurement, channel roles, creative relevance and qualification.
1
Cleaned Google conversion tracking
Removed micro-events from the primary conversion set and re-centred optimisation around actual lead submissions.
2
Turned Meta into a lead-generation channel
Moved beyond awareness activity with lead forms, audience segmentation and creative testing focused on schools, colleges and laboratories.
3
Built creative around buyer questions
Ads addressed practical high-intent questions such as science-lab setup cost and complete laboratory solutions.
4
Reallocated budget based on efficiency
Google spend was reduced and more budget was moved toward Meta once the channel demonstrated a lower lead-acquisition cost.
5
Added stronger quality signals
Audience exclusions, negative-keyword hygiene and qualification questions were used to reduce irrelevant enquiries while scaling volume.
Google Ads
Measurement had to become trustworthy before performance could be judged.
The biggest Google Ads change was not cosmetic. The conversion framework was rebuilt so campaign reporting reflected lead-generation activity rather than a mix of micro-events.
Before · FY 2024–25
Reporting looked efficient, but the signal was noisy.
Micro-events such as page views, video views and scroll depth were included in the conversion set.
₹0.72reported cost / conversion
239Kreported conversions
After · FY 2025–26
The conversion framework became lead-focused.
Primary conversion tracking was cleaned up and campaign optimisation was aligned more closely with actual lead generation.
₹0.26reported cost / conversion
-64%reported cost / conversion change
Important context: these figures are shown as reported cost per conversion, not true CPL, because the original setup included non-lead conversion actions.
Meta Ads
The under-tested channel became a major lead source.
Once Meta was treated as a serious acquisition channel, spend could be scaled with a clearer creative, audience and qualification framework.
Before · FY 2024–25
Meta was still an experiment.
Spend was too limited to establish the channel as a meaningful B2B acquisition source.
₹9,413spend
8tracked leads
After · FY 2025–26
Meta became a serious acquisition engine.
Spend was scaled only after the channel demonstrated it could generate volume at an efficient cost.
₹1.9Lspend
3,306leads
₹57cost per lead
20×approx. spend scale-up
Role of automation: Meta's automated delivery and optimisation supported scaling, while audience decisions, creative direction, qualification logic and budget choices remained actively managed.
The outcome
More volume — without giving up measurement discipline.
The strongest improvement was not one isolated campaign. It was a more measurable acquisition system that made it easier to see which channels and messages deserved more investment.
6,514Total leads in FY 2025–26
59%Qualification rate
3,306Meta leads
₹57Meta cost per lead
41%Junk-lead rate, down from 52%
The largest improvement was not simply generating more leads. It was making the acquisition system measurable enough to identify which channels, campaigns and messages were actually contributing to business growth.
What I learned
Three lessons I would carry into the next account.
The case reinforced that performance marketing decisions become much stronger when measurement, channel testing and sales-quality feedback are treated as one system.
Tracking can change the strategy before a new campaign does.
If the optimisation signal is wrong, even a well-built campaign can move in the wrong direction.
An under-tested channel should not be written off too early.
Meta looked insignificant until it was given enough budget, structure and creative testing to prove its role.
Lead quality belongs inside the marketing loop.
Volume becomes useful only when qualification and junk-lead rates are monitored alongside acquisition cost.
Have a growth problem worth unpacking?
Let’s talk through the data, the funnel and the most practical way forward.