I took over a ₹1 crore-a-month account in its least efficient month on record. Here's what I found, what I changed, and what it did.
Five consecutive monthly declines — while cost per click rose 8.9%
Before touching a bid, I mapped where efficiency actually sat. Cost per lead ranged 25× across the account — ₹47 to ₹1,185. That isn't variance, it's a routing problem. 32 of 55 campaigns were running above blended CPL while absorbing 47% of spend. Twelve efficient campaigns were capped by budget. And with Target CPA running on 53 of 55 campaigns, the bidding was only ever going to be as good as the conversion signal underneath it — which had gaps.
| Campaign | Spend | Apr CPL | Aug CPL | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| French Language | ₹40.6 L | ₹526 | ₹430 | −18.4% |
| Japanese Language | ₹17.2 L | ₹474 | ₹398 | −15.9% |
| SAP Generic | ₹32.7 L | ₹392 | ₹331 | −15.5% |
| Six Sigma Generic | ₹26.2 L | ₹737 | ₹637 | −13.6% |
Measurement comes before bidding. Automated bidding is a signal amplifier. Feed it an unreliable conversion signal and it will scale the wrong thing efficiently.
Budget caps on efficient campaigns are the most expensive error in a large account. Twelve capped campaigns held 29% of spend — the account was throttling its own winners.
A 25× CPL spread is a routing problem, not a creative problem. The fix is moving money, not making more ads.
Falling CPL against rising CPC is the only efficiency that counts. Clicks got 8.9% more expensive over these five months. The gain came from the funnel, not the market.
Spending at this scale and not sure where the waste is?
Let's TalkFigures from the client's Google Ads campaign export, 1 April – 30 August 2026. Changes measured April vs August. Figures marked Modelled are derived, not observed — engagement click volume evaluated at the pre-engagement conversion rate. All amounts INR.