The two questions
Is the market there, and are you taking it?
Opportunity
68/100
Real retainer demand exists, but it is a narrow tail behind a very broad head term.
Execution
27/100
Traffic is arriving and almost none of it converts. The account is buying the wrong half of the market.
The market is there and you are not taking it. This is an execution problem, not a channel problem, and the fix is targeting and tracking rather than budget.
↘Agenda
↘Market Scale:
Managed IT support draws 13,700 searches a month at the head, but only about 230 of those carry retainer intent. The rest are consumer and break-fix.
↘Estimated Forecast:
At a 10% website conversion on a £2,000/mo budget aimed only at retainer intent, the model projects 4 contract wins a year at £18,000 each.
↘Competitor Research:
Both incumbents bid the narrow retainer terms and ignore the head term entirely. Their ads carry proof; their landing pages do not.
↘Plan of Attack:
Stop buying the head term, rebuild tracking so contract enquiries are counted, and mirror the competitors' proof placement.
↘Market Demand
Search Volume for High Value Keywords
| Keyword | AVG Monthly Searches | YoY Change | Intent | Recommended | CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| it support | 12100 | 0% | Low | No | £3.10 - 9.40 |
| it support near me | 1600 | 12% | Low | No | £4.20 - 11.80 |
| outsourced it support for business | 140 | 38% | High | Yes | £6.10 - 22.40 |
| managed it support contract | 90 | 44% | High | Yes | £6.40 - 26.10 |
2numbers carry into your forecast
Total monthly searches
230
people looking, every month
+
Blended average CPC
£6.20
conservative, weighted to the head term
↘
These drive the
Performance Forecast
Performance Forecast
↘Performance Forecast
← carried from Market Demand
Searches available230/mo
Cost per click£6.20
Clicks
323
You spend £2,000 a month. At £6.20 a click that buys 323 clicks, about 140% of the 230 people searching.
Leads
32
If 10% of those visitors enquire, you get 32 leads.
Quotes
14
45% of leads ask for a quote, so 14 quotes.
Jobs won
8
56% of quotes close, so 8 jobs won.
Your numbers· edit to re-forecast on their figures
Your monthly return
1,645%
£49,350 profit on £3,000 invested (ads + management) is a 1,645% monthly return.
£16.45 profit for every £1 invested
Revenue£144,000
8 jobs at £18,000 each is £144,000 revenue.
Costs£94,650
£2,000 ads + £1,000 management + £91,650 delivery (your 35% margin) = £94,650.
Profit£49,350
£144,000 revenue minus £94,650 costs is £49,350 profit.
Per £1 in£16.45
Modelled against actual
The traffic arrived. Almost none of it converted.
| Modelled | Actual | Gap | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clicks | 322 | 289 | -10% |
| Enquiries | 32 | 3 | -91% |
| Qualified quotes | 14 | 1 | -93% |
| Contracts won | 4 | 0 | -100% |
| Cost per enquiry | GBP 62 | GBP 597 | 9.6x |
Click volume landed within 10% of the model, so the budget and the CPC assumptions were sound. Everything downstream collapsed. That points at who is clicking and whether the enquiry is being counted, not at how much is being spent.
Part two
Inside the account
The market says the demand is there and the model says the budget should reach it. Now we look at what the account is actually doing with it.
Clean Account Structure
Campaigns are separated by service line with sensible naming, so the diagnosis below is about targeting and measurement rather than an account that needs rebuilding from scratch.
Buying The Wrong 98% Of The Market
Risk
94% of spend goes to the head term and its near-me variant, which the market data shows carries consumer and break-fix intent.
Consequence
Clicks arrive at a page selling annual contracts, from people who want a one-off laptop repair.
The Enquiry Is Not Being Counted
Risk
The contract enquiry form posts to a thank-you page that carries no conversion tag.
Consequence
Three enquiries were recorded manually in the inbox and zero in the account, so bidding has been optimising against silence.
Google Ads
The 6 Levers
→Tech Set Up (Tracking & Attribution)
→Audiences
→Campaign Structure
→Optimisations / Bidding Strategies
→Creative
→Post Click
1. Tracking & Attribution
Bidding against an event that never fires
Vulnerability
Risk
The primary conversion action points at a thank-you URL that the tag never fires on, so the account has recorded zero conversions since launch.
Consequence
Any conversion-based bid strategy will throttle delivery rather than bid blind, which reads as the ads failing when it is the measurement failing.
Opportunity
Action
Fix the tag, backfill from the CRM where possible, and add a secondary action on the phone click so low-volume months still produce signal.
Outcome
Bidding gets something real to optimise toward, and the next three months of data are worth reading.
2. Audiences (Location & Demographics)
No separation between buyer and browser
Vulnerability
Risk
One campaign serves both the head term and the retainer terms, with a single budget and no audience segmentation.
Consequence
The head term consumes the budget before the high-intent terms get an impression, and nothing in the account shows this happening.
Opportunity
Action
Split retainer intent into its own campaign with its own budget, and add the head term to negatives rather than trying to qualify it with ad copy.
Outcome
The narrow, valuable tail gets funded, and its performance becomes visible for the first time.
3. Campaign Structure & Budget
Broad match with no negative library
Vulnerability
Risk
Broad match on a generic head term, with eleven negatives in the account and no shared list.
Consequence
Spend leaks into laptop repair, printer setup and home wifi queries, none of which can become an annual contract.
Opportunity
Action
Move to phrase match on retainer intent, and build a shared negative list around consumer and break-fix language.
Outcome
Lower average CPC and a defensive asset that protects every future account.
6. Post-Click (Landing Pages)
One page for two completely different buyers
Vulnerability
Risk
Both the head term and the retainer terms land on a general services page that leads with break-fix pricing.
Consequence
A prospect searching for an annual contract sees hourly rates first, which frames the whole relationship wrongly before they scroll.
Opportunity
Action
Build a dedicated contract page led by the contract offer, with the enquiry form above the fold and proof beside it.
Outcome
The click and the page finally agree about who the visitor is, which lifts conversion and Quality Score together.
Competitor 1 of 2
Competitor A
example-a.co.uk
Bids only the retainer terms and ignores the head term entirely. Ads carry proof; the landing page does not.
↘Ad Breakdown
Competitor A
↘Their ad today
HeaderManaged IT Support Contracts | 24/7 UK Helpdesk
DescriptionFixed monthly cost, no surprise invoices. ISO 27001 certified, 200+ UK businesses supported.
Competitor ad screenshot
Precise Intent Match
The headline names the contract, not the category, so it only attracts the buyer who wants one.
Proof In The Description
ISO 27001 and a client count give a trust cue at the point of decision, which matters on a considered annual commitment.
No Command CTA
Nothing in the headline tells the searcher to act, so the click depends entirely on their own momentum.
No Price Anchor
Fixed monthly cost is claimed but never anchored, so the reader cannot self-qualify before clicking.
No Self-Qualification
Nothing signals company size or contract minimum, so the ad invites two-person firms it has no intention of serving.
↘How We'd Write It
Competitor A
Same points as their breakdown. Here's how our rewrite delivers every one.
Precise Intent Match
Carried over
Proof In The Description
Carried over
No Command CTA
Now fixed
No Price Anchor
Now fixed
No Self-Qualification
Now fixed
↘How we'd write it
Header 1Managed IT Support Contracts
Header 2Get Your Fixed Monthly Quote
Header 3ISO 27001, 200+ UK Firms
Description 124/7 UK helpdesk, fixed cost, no surprise invoices.
↘Landing Page Audit
Competitor A
example-a.co.uk
12341Enquiry Form Below The Fold
The contract enquiry sits three scrolls down, behind a company history section that nobody arriving from a paid click asked for.
2Proof Sits Away From The Form
Accreditations appear in the footer rather than beside the form, so the trust cue arrives after the decision point.
3No Self-Qualification
Nothing on the page tells a two-person firm that this is not for them, so the form collects leads the sales team then has to reject.
4Navigation Competes With The Form
Full site navigation stays visible, giving a paid visitor eleven ways to leave before they reach the one action that matters.
Competitor 2 of 2
Competitor B
example-b.co.uk
Spends heavily on the head term and converts it with a genuinely well-built page. Beatable on intent, not on execution.
↘Ad Breakdown
Competitor B
↘Their ad today
HeaderIT Support For UK Business | From GBP 29 Per User
DescriptionTalk to a UK engineer in 30 seconds. No contracts until you're ready. Free IT health check.
Competitor ad screenshot
Price Anchor Up Front
A per-user price lets the reader self-qualify before spending a click, which lifts lead quality without touching targeting.
Falsifiable Promise
'A UK engineer in 30 seconds' can be proved false in 31 seconds, which is exactly why it reads as credible.
Head Term Exposure
Bidding the generic term means paying consumer prices for consumer traffic, which the price anchor mitigates but does not solve.
Nothing For The Contract Buyer
Every line speaks to break-fix. A prospect looking for an annual contract sees no reason to think this firm sells one.
CTA Buried In The Description
The free health check is the strongest asset in the ad and it sits at the end of line two, where the scanning eye has already gone.
↘How We'd Write It
Competitor B
Same points as their breakdown. Here's how our rewrite delivers every one.
Price Anchor Up Front
Carried over
Falsifiable Promise
Carried over
Head Term Exposure
Now fixed
Nothing For The Contract Buyer
Now fixed
CTA Buried In The Description
Now fixed
↘How we'd write it
Header 1IT Support For UK Business
Header 2Book Your Free IT Health Check
Header 3From GBP 29 Per User, UK Engineers
Description 1Talk to a UK engineer in 30 seconds, no contract required.
↘Landing Page Audit
Competitor B
example-b.co.uk
12341Offer Mirrored Above The Fold
The free health check named in the ad is the first thing on the page, so the promise is kept on arrival.
2Single Conversion Path
One action, repeated. No competing navigation, no secondary offers pulling the visitor sideways.
3Thin On Contract Buyers
The page is built for the break-fix buyer, so a prospect looking for an annual contract finds nothing addressed to them.
4No Path Between The Two Offers
A visitor who arrives for break-fix and turns out to want a contract has nowhere to go, so the higher-value intent leaks away silently.
Plan of attack
Everything, in the order it should happen
Immediate fixes
Fix the conversion tag
high prioritylow effort
Negative out the head term
high prioritylow effort
High impact
Split retainer intent into its own campaign
high prioritymedium effort
Build a dedicated contract landing page
medium priorityhigh effort
Tests to run
Test a price anchor in the ad
medium prioritylow effort
Longer term
Reconcile enquiries against closed contracts
medium prioritymedium effort
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 1 of 6
01
The Gap
The contract enquiry fires no conversion tag, so the account has recorded zero conversions since launch
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Fix the tag on the thank-you page and verify with Tag Assistant
- Add a phone-click secondary action so low-volume months still produce signal
→
The Payoff
- Bidding gets a real event to optimise toward
- The next three months of data become worth reading
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 2 of 6
02
The Gap
94% of spend goes to a term the market data shows carries consumer and break-fix intent
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Add consumer and break-fix language to a shared negative list
- Pause the head-term ad group rather than trying to qualify it with copy
→
The Payoff
- Budget stops funding clicks that cannot become a contract
- The retainer terms get an impression for the first time
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 3 of 6
03
The Gap
One campaign and one budget serve two completely different buyers
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Separate campaign, separate budget, phrase match on retainer intent
- Ring-fence the budget so the head term cannot consume it
→
The Payoff
- The narrow valuable tail gets funded
- Its performance becomes visible and measurable
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 4 of 6
04
The Gap
Both buyer types land on a page that leads with hourly break-fix pricing
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Contract offer above the fold with the enquiry form beside it
- Move accreditations next to the form, following Competitor A's gap
→
The Payoff
- Click and page finally agree about who the visitor is
- Conversion rate and Quality Score move together
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 5 of 6
05
The Gap
Nothing lets a prospect self-qualify before spending a click
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Test a per-user price in headline three, following Competitor B
- Measure lead quality, not click-through rate
→
The Payoff
- Fewer, better clicks
- Lead quality improves without touching targeting
↘Our Strategic "Plan of Attack"
Priority 6 of 6
06
The Gap
Nothing connects an ad click to a signed contract, so optimisation stops at the enquiry
Competitor evidence
Our Play
- Pass a lead ID into the CRM and import closed-won back as a conversion
- Report on contract value, not enquiry count
→
The Payoff
- Bidding optimises toward revenue rather than form fills
- The channel can finally be judged on profit
↘The Opportunity, in Three Lines
- 1Retainer demand is real but narrow: about 230 searches a month against a 13,700 head term that carries the wrong intent entirely.
- 2Click volume landed within 10% of the model and everything downstream collapsed, which points at measurement and targeting rather than budget.
- 3Fix the tag and negative out the head term first. Those two changes cost almost nothing and make every other number in the account readable.
→Book a 20-minute call and we'll turn this into a launch plan.