How to read these case studies
Marketing case studies are usually unfalsifiable — a number, a logo, and no way to check either. These are built so you can check them. This page explains exactly what each part of a case study is claiming, and what it is not.
Every page has a verified half and a measured half
The verified half is the audit. We loaded the live site on a stated date and recorded what was there. Those observations are public facts about public websites — you can open the same URL and check them yourself, allowing for anything fixed since.
The measured halfis the numbers. Each KPI has a baseline, a target derived from published category benchmarks, and — once the client's reporting has been reconciled — a reported result.
These are labelled differently and they are never mixed. A page whose numbers are still targets says so, in plain language, directly above the table.
Where the numbers come from
A number with no denominator is decoration. Every benchmark we cite names its source, its year, and what it actually measured — including sample size where the source states one. All 55 of them are below, with live links.
We do not publish our own aggregate statistics as though they were industry research, and we do not emit review or rating markup we have not earned.
What a client receives
Every engagement hands over the raw exports behind its own reporting — the ad platform change history, the search terms report before and after, call recordings scored for booking outcome, and the client-side booking, patient or policy export matched to source. Each case study lists the specific set for that engagement.
That list is the point. If an agency cannot tell you which export a number came from, the number is a decoration.
The current library
45
10
55
0
Every benchmark we cite
| Published figure | What it measures | Source |
|---|---|---|
| $1,127/mo | Average wasted Google Ads spend — over a third of budget (15,666 accounts) | WordStream via PPC Land (2026) |
| 13.0% vs 4.6% | Conversion rate, accounts using negative keywords vs not; 25% have never added one | WordStream via PPC Land (2026) |
| 22% / 44% | AI mention rate for Fintech & Finance: median and top quartile, non-branded prompts | MaxAEO (vendor benchmark) (2026) |
| 28% / 55% | AI mention rate for Local & Home Services: median and top quartile, non-branded prompts | MaxAEO (vendor benchmark) (2026) |
| +35% / +91% | Organic and paid CTR lift when your page is cited inside the AI Overview | Seer Interactive (2025) |
| -34.5% | Click-through drop for the top-ranking page when an AI Overview is present (300,000 keywords) | Ahrefs (2025) |
| 84% | Share of AI citations tracing to earned media (25M+ links, 17 industries) | Muck Rack (2026) |
| 25.7% | How much fresher AI-cited content is than organic top-10 (1,064 vs 1,432 days, 17M URLs) | Ahrefs (2026) |
| 45% | Consumers using generative AI for local business recommendations, up from 6% in 2025 | BrightLocal Local Consumer Review Survey (2026) |
| 97% | Share of llms.txt files that received zero requests in a month (137,210 domains) | Ahrefs (2026) |
| 0.664 vs 0.218 | Correlation with AI visibility: branded web mentions vs backlinks (75,000 brands) | Ahrefs (2026) |
| 77% | Share of AI citations on branded queries coming from off-page sources, not the brand's own site | Omniscient Digital (23,000+ citations) (2026) |
| no lift | Controlled test, 1,885 pages adding JSON-LD vs 4,000 controls: AI Overviews -4.6%, ChatGPT +2.2% n.s. | Ahrefs (2026) |
| 68.01% | US Google searches ending without a click, up from 60.45% in 2024 | Search Engine Land / SparkToro (2026) |
| 17.6% | Local pack position-one click-through rate (positions 2 and 3: 15.4%, 15.1%) | First Page Sage (2025) |
| Top 4 | 2026 local pack factors: GBP primary category, proximity, keywords in business title, address in search city | Whitespark Local Search Ranking Factors (2026) |
| 93% | Share of local-intent queries still returning a Local Pack; only ~15% trigger an AI Overview | Whitespark (2025) |
| 47% | Consumers who will not use a business with fewer than 20 reviews | BrightLocal (2026) |
| 74% | Consumers who want reviews from the last three months; 32% from the last two weeks | BrightLocal (2026) |
| 80% | More likely to use a business that responds to all reviews; 50% deterred by templated replies | BrightLocal (2026) |
| 68% / 31% | Consumers requiring 4+ stars, and 4.5+ stars (up from 55% and 17% in 2025) | BrightLocal (2026) |
| 37.6% | HVAC non-branded search lead-to-booked-job rate (vs 55.3% branded) | SearchLight Digital (2026) |
| $104 | HVAC blended Google Ads cost per lead, all campaign types | SearchLight Digital (2026) |
| $34 | HVAC branded search cost per lead | SearchLight Digital (2026) |
| $149 | HVAC non-branded Google Ads cost per lead (816 contractors, $14.88M spend, 143,008 leads) | SearchLight Digital (2026) |
| 44.0% | HVAC Local Services Ads book rate, $2,110 average ticket, 9.55x closed ROAS | Valley Marketing Group (2026) |
| $51 | HVAC Local Services Ads cost per lead (888 contractors, 126,650 leads) | Booked Friday / SearchLight (2026) |
| +266% / +137% | 'AC repair' July search volume lift and 'furnace repair' January lift vs baseline | Stacker (Ahrefs data) (2026) |
| $1,205 | Average HVAC repair ticket, up 47% from $818 in 2021 (~2M jobs analysed) | Housecall Pro (2025) |
| 52% answer rate | Home services inbound call answer rate; 55% never ask the caller to book (70M+ calls) | Invoca (2026) |
| 55% / 72% | Dental call-to-appointment conversion: industry average vs top decile (12.5M interactions) | Patient Prism (2026) |
| 30-38% | Share of dental practice calls unanswered during business hours; 60-65% are new-patient calls | Dental Economics (2026) |
| $72.97 | Dental Google Ads cost per lead, $8.00 CPC, 10.67% conversion rate (13,474 US campaigns) | WordStream / LocaliQ (2026) |
| $75.19 | Emergency dentistry cost per lead, 8.89% conversion rate | LocaliQ Healthcare (2025) |
| $84.77 | General dentistry cost per lead, 7.74% conversion rate | LocaliQ Healthcare (2025) |
| $71.52 | Orthodontics cost per lead, 14.21% conversion rate — highest of any dental segment | LocaliQ Healthcare (2025) |
| 36% | Share of identified lost call opportunities that receive any follow-up | Patient Prism (2026) |
| $2,143 / $15,176 | US average single-tooth implant (before crown) and All-on-4 arch | CareCredit / Synchrony ASQ360 (2025) |
| 25 days vs 4.5 | New-patient appointment lead time: average vs top 10% | Henry Schein One Catalyst Index (2026) |
| $76.71 CPL | Meta ads dental cost per lead, $9.78 CPC — highest CPC of any industry (avg $27.66 / $1.92) | LocaliQ (2025) |
| $850-$1,300 | New dental patient first-year production | Dental Economics (2026) |
| 46/month | Average new patients per practice per month (8,593 practices); 75+/mo practices grow 9.0% | Planet DDS (2026) |
| 11% vs 93% | AI Overview coverage: local health queries vs conditions/symptoms queries | Search Engine Land / BrightEdge (2026) |
| 47% / 36% | Patients who used AI to research providers, and who say AI influenced their final choice | rater8 Patient Choice Report (2026) |
| 75% / 44% | Patients refusing to book below 4.0 stars, and requiring 4.5+ | rater8 Patient Choice Report (2026) |
| HIPAA + FTC | Before/after photos need written authorisation naming who/where/how; FTC requires atypical-results disclaimer and material-connection disclosure | ByrdAdatto (2025) |
| 84% | Insurance quote-form abandonment rate (desktop completion 47%, mobile 42%) | ProPair / Zuko (2026) |
| 29% / 42% | Auto & home customers using AI somewhere in the insurance journey; share of those who then purchased | J.D. Power (2026) |
| ~63% | Share of commercial insurance queries returning an AI Overview | BrightEdge via ALM (2026) |
| ~$900 | Independent insurance agent customer acquisition cost (vs $792 captive) | SimpleSolve via Metricus (2026) |
| $3.39 | Finance & Insurance average CPC — below the $5.42 all-industry average | WordStream / LocaliQ (2026) |
| $74.44 | Finance & Insurance cost per lead; 9.83% CTR — highest of any vertical; 2.64% conversion — near lowest | WordStream / LocaliQ (2026) |
| 3.5 | Quotes pulled per auto insurance shopper — an all-time high; 48% of new policies bought online | J.D. Power Insurance Shopping Study (2026) |
| 92% | Median independent agency client retention (95% top quartile) | Big I / Reagan Consulting Best Practices (2026) |
| 1.8% / 2.3% | Health & wellness organic engagement rate, Instagram and TikTok | Dash Social (2026) |
Questions
It means someone loaded the live public website on the date shown and confirmed what was and was not there. A 404 on a contact page, a footer copyright reading 2013-2020, an apex domain returning 403, two Google Business Profiles with different review counts. These are observations of public facts, stamped with the date they were made. Websites change — if a client has fixed something since, the observation was still true when it was made, and the date on the page tells you when that was.
Every one of the 55 benchmark figures we cite is published by a named third party, carries the year it was published, and links out to the source. None of them are ours. We use them because a category median is the only honest way to say whether a specific account is doing well or badly — "$149 cost per lead" means nothing until you know the category average across 816 contractors is also $149.
A target is what the programme was set up to move a number to, derived from the published category benchmarks. A result is what the client's own reporting says actually happened, reconciled against their ad platform exports, call recordings, and booking or policy system. We label these differently on every page and we never print one in the other's place. A page showing targets says so above the table.
Because reconciling a client's reporting is a real piece of work and it happens on their reporting cycle, not ours. Until a figure has been pulled from the client's own systems and matched to source, it stays labelled as a target. We would rather show you an honest target than an impressive number we cannot substantiate on request.
For their own account, every client can, and does — the proof assets listed on each case study are the exports they already receive. For someone else's account, no: that is their commercial data and it is not ours to hand out. What you can check independently is every benchmark on the page, because each one links to its published source, and every "what we verified" observation, because the site is public.
No. Nobody can, and an agency that offers to should worry you. What we commit to is the measurement standard on this page: named sources for every benchmark, dated observations for every claim about a site, and a clear line between a target and a reported result.