Case study · Franchise development

257 franchise leads for $7,870. And a short list of 45 worth calling first.

A pet grooming franchise wanted owners for new locations, not a list of dog lovers. We tested a batch of ads on about $300 a week, put the capital question in the form, and we’re publishing every number, including the ones that went up.

257Franchise leads

Meta ads, Dec 2025 to Mar 2026.

$30.62Cost per lead

$7,870 total ad spend.

45Candidates with $100K+

17% of those asked about capital.

94%Leads from two ads

Nine ad versions produced leads.

We’ve kept the brand’s name private. The numbers are unchanged.

Snapshot

The campaign at a glance.

Client
An emerging pet grooming franchise. We’ve kept the name private.
Goal
Find qualified candidates to open new franchise locations
Channel
Meta ads with a qualifying form. TikTok tested for two weeks
Period
Dec 8, 2025 to Mar 15, 2026
Ad spend
$7,870 on Meta, $312 on TikTok
Leads
257 reported by Meta
Cost per lead
$30.62 overall. $10.64 across the best three weeks
Capital
45 candidates reported $100K or more, 17% of the 263 who were asked
Intent
100 of 271 said they were ready to take the next step, serious or very serious
Top market
One state, named by 111 of the 153 candidates who gave a target market

The challenge

A pet franchise ad attracts dog lovers first and investors second.

The goal was a steady flow of people who want to own a location and can fund one. Raw lead count wasn’t the measure. Candidates the development team could call with their capital, market and timeline already known were.

95%Dog owners

258 of 271 leads were current or past dog owners.

83%Lowest capital bucket

218 of the 263 asked picked $50K to $100K.

17%Reported $100K or more

45 candidates. 13 of them reported $200K or more.

So the job had two parts. First, get leads cheaply enough to see a large pool. Second, sort that pool inside the form, so the team spends its calls on the 17% and not the 83%.

What we did

Test small, qualify harder, then test a new angle.

Eight moves across 14 weeks, in the order we made them.

  1. Dec 8

    Launched a batch of ads on a small budget.

    Nine versions produced leads. Spend stayed between $182 and $410 a week for the first five weeks while the winners showed themselves.

  2. Dec 13

    Put three qualifying questions in the first form.

    Every lead answered three questions: their experience with dogs, their current situation, and how much capital they can access, counting cash, lending and partners.

  3. Dec 29 to Jan 11

    Tested TikTok beside Meta for two weeks.

    TikTok produced 2 leads for $312. Meta produced 59 leads for $642 in the same two weeks. We switched TikTok off.

  4. Jan 12

    Rebuilt the form to sort candidates.

    The second form asked who the candidate is (employee, business owner or investor), which market they want, how serious they are and the best time to call. From then on, every lead arrived ready to schedule.

  5. Mid-January to mid-March

    Raised the budget.

    Weekly spend went from about $300 to between $640 and $1,035.

  6. All campaign

    Moved spend to the winning ad.

    One ad carried December with 71 of 76 leads. A second took over from mid-January and produced 71 of 76 leads in February and all 23 in March.

  7. March

    Tested a story-led campaign with a new form.

    This form asked about business and management experience and the timeline to open. It added 11 leads. Eight reported significant business or management experience, and ten wanted to open within six months.

  8. Every week

    Logged every lead with the ad that produced it.

    That’s why each lead in this case study can be traced back to an ad.

The results

Cost per lead held near $10 at about $350 a week, then rose as spend tripled.

The cheapest stretch was Dec 15 to Jan 4: 103 leads for $1,096, or $10.64 each. After Jan 12 each lead cost more and told the team more.

Cost per lead, by weekJan 12: longer form, higher budgetWeek of Dec 8: 3 leads at $60.63 each$60.63Week of Dec 15: 26 leads at $13.35 eachWeek of Dec 22: 31 leads at $10.92 eachWeek of Dec 29: 46 leads at $8.91 each$8.91Week of Jan 5: 13 leads at $17.84 eachWeek of Jan 12: 25 leads at $25.70 each$25.70Week of Jan 19: 21 leads at $33.39 eachWeek of Feb 2: 20 leads at $34.91 eachWeek of Feb 9: 19 leads at $53.95 eachWeek of Feb 16: 15 leads at $68.96 each$68.96Week of Feb 23: 17 leads at $48.54 eachWeek of Mar 2: 15 leads at $68.06 eachWeek of Mar 8: 6 leads at $68.87 each$68.87Ad spend, by weekWeek of Dec 8: 3 leads on $182$182Dec 8Week of Dec 15: 26 leads on $347Dec 15Week of Dec 22: 31 leads on $339Dec 22Week of Dec 29: 46 leads on $410Dec 29Week of Jan 5: 13 leads on $232Jan 5Week of Jan 12: 25 leads on $643Jan 12Week of Jan 19: 21 leads on $701Jan 19Week of Feb 2: 20 leads on $698Feb 2Week of Feb 9: 19 leads on $1,025Feb 9Week of Feb 16: 15 leads on $1,034$1,034Feb 16Week of Feb 23: 17 leads on $825Feb 23Week of Mar 2: 15 leads on $1,021Mar 2Week of Mar 8: 6 leads on $413Mar 8
257 leads for $7,870 on Meta, $30.62 each. Dark bars are weeks under $15 a lead. The week of Jan 26 has no report, so it is missing from the chart.
See the weekly numbers
Week ofAd spendLeadsCost per lead
Dec 8$181.893$60.63
Dec 15$347.1826$13.35
Dec 22$338.5831$10.92
Dec 29$409.9146$8.91
Jan 5$231.9313$17.84
Jan 12$642.5625$25.70
Jan 19$701.2421$33.39
Feb 2$698.2720$34.91
Feb 9$1025.0219$53.95
Feb 16$1034.4315$68.96
Feb 23$825.2517$48.54
Mar 2$1020.9515$68.06
Mar 8$413.236$68.87

The funnel

StageCountRateCost each
Impressions118,868$66.21 per 1,000
Clicks2,0411.72% of impressions$3.86
Leads25712.6% of clicks$30.62
Leads reporting $100K+ capital4517% of those askedabout $175
Leads reporting $200K+ capital135% of those askedabout $605

Before and after the form change

Dec 8 to Jan 11Jan 12 to Mar 15
Weeks reported58
Ad spend$1,509$6,361
Average weekly spend$302$795
Leads119138
Cost per lead$12.68$46.09
What each lead told usDog experience, situation, capitalThe same, plus profile, target market, seriousness and best time to call

Who the leads were

The form did the sorting before anyone picked up the phone.

Of 271 leads, 100 said they were ready to take the next step, serious or very serious. The second form, live from Jan 12, also asked who they are and where they want to open.

Capital they can access

263 leads asked

  • $50K to $100K218 · 83%
  • $100K to $200K32 · 12%
  • $200K to $400K9 · 3%
  • $500K or more4 · 2%

How serious they are

153 leads, second form

  • Very serious, want the next step20 · 13%
  • Serious, want to open a franchise38 · 25%
  • Done research, undecided50 · 33%
  • Just exploring45 · 29%

Who they are

153 leads, second form

  • Working a 9-5 and want to transition60 · 39%
  • Own one or more businesses30 · 20%
  • Investor looking for opportunities17 · 11%
  • Something else46 · 30%

Where they want to open

153 leads, second form

  • The brand’s top state111 · 73%
  • A second state10 · 7%
  • Other states or unclear32 · 21%

Candidates typed their market as free text, so the state counts are our reading of each answer. Best times to call split evenly: 56 afternoons, 52 mornings, 45 evenings.

Ads and channels

Two ads did almost all the work. One channel did none.

Which ads worked

AdLeadsShare of 271
Winning ad15557%
Second ad9937%
Seven other versions176%

Meta against TikTok, Dec 29 to Jan 11

ChannelSpendLeadsCost per lead
Meta$64259$10.88
TikTok$3122$155.77

Why it worked

Five lessons for any franchisor running paid lead generation.

  1. Lesson 1

    Find the winner before you scale.

    Two of nine ads produced 94% of the leads. Five weeks at about $300 a week was enough to see it. Spreading the budget evenly would have wasted most of it.

  2. Lesson 2

    Qualify inside the form.

    The capital question turned 271 names into a short list of 45. A development team can start with that list instead of dialing everyone.

  3. Lesson 3

    Ask for the market and the best time to call.

    After Jan 12 every lead named a territory and a call window. That showed where demand sits: 73% of named markets were in one state.

  4. Lesson 4

    Cut a channel fast when it loses.

    TikTok cost $155.77 a lead against $10.88 on Meta in the same two weeks. It was off after $312.

  5. Lesson 5

    Count cost per qualified candidate, not cost per lead.

    Cost per lead rose from $12.68 to $46.09 as the form got longer and the budget grew. The number to judge by is about $175 per candidate with $100K or more.

What we’d change

Three things we’d do differently next time.

These numbers stop at the lead. Calls held, disclosure documents sent and signed agreements aren’t in this data, so we don’t claim them here.

  • Add an “under $50K” capital option.83% picked the lowest bucket, so that bucket hides people who can’t fund a location.
  • Ask the timeline on every form.Only the March form asked when the candidate wants to open.
  • Track every lead to the call and the signed agreement.The ads did their job. The numbers that prove revenue sit after the lead.

For franchisors

Want this run for your brand?

Our development team page has every price and the guarantee terms. Or tell us about your brand in about two minutes.

See the offerRequest for quote

Sources: ad spend, clicks and lead totals are Meta’s reports for 13 weeks between Dec 8, 2025 and Mar 15, 2026. The week of Jan 26 has no report and is left out. Candidate answers come from the lead-form log, which holds 271 submissions through Mar 31, 2026, so the cost per funded candidate is approximate. Results are from one campaign and vary by brand, offer, market and budget. Leads are not signed franchise agreements.