Google Ads : Performance Report
Taller 5 : Google Ads
Performance since Sorbet took over
A snapshot of account performance before and after Sorbet Agency assumed management in April 2026. March 2026 is the final full month under the previous setup and serves as our baseline.
Headline results
Baseline Mar vs latest full month May
Same budget, more results. With spend essentially held flat, monthly leads rose +34% and the cost per lead fell -19%. We did this by cutting wasted spend on irrelevant searches and concentrating budget on the queries that actually convert.
The trend, month by month
Mar to May 2026Leads and cost per lead
More leads (bars) at a lower cost each (line). Lower line = more efficient.
Traffic quality
Fewer clicks (bars), but a higher share converting into leads (line).
Monthly detail
| Month | Period | Spend | Clicks | Leads | Cost / Lead | Conv. Rate |
|---|
Lead quality and search intent
Clicks per Lead
21
was 53 clicks
▼ -60% vs pre-Sorbet
Keywords Producing Leads
54
was just 3
▲ 18x more
Low-Intent Spend Filtered
~38%
of budget reached irrelevant searches
now filtered out
From broad reach to high intent. The account used to pay for a flood of low-intent traffic: free-course seekers, tutorials, gaming searches, competitor research and aggregators. A 462-term negative keyword list now filters these out, and a dedicated Brand campaign captures the highest-intent searches (people already looking for Taller 5) at the lowest cost. The result: roughly half the clicks, but each one far more likely to be a genuine prospective student, which is why leads rose even as click volume fell.
What we changed
Foundational cleanup (Apr to May)
- Stopped the wasteBuilt a 462-term negative keyword list and paused 678 non-performing keywords. Roughly 38% of spend was leaking to irrelevant searches.
- Refocused the budgetPaused closed-program campaigns and reallocated spend to the top-performing programs.
- Made every peso work harderKeywords actually producing leads grew from 3 to 54, an 18x improvement in productive coverage.
Structural upgrade (June)
- Built the Dynamic Search campaignSet a target cost-per-lead and expanded automated coverage across all programs to capture high-intent demand the keyword campaigns weren't reaching.
- Launched a dedicated Brand campaignBrand searches were scattered across 7 campaigns at up to 45x price differences for the same query. Now consolidated and bought at a fraction of the cost.
- Protected program budgetsBrand-term exclusions added account-wide so program campaigns spend only on net-new prospects.
Campaign performance
Current snapshot : Jun 6 to 17, 2026Dynamic : Rank by Leads
#1 of 16
top lead driver on the account
Dynamic : Leads (12 days)
39
from 0 before the rebuild
Dynamic : Cost per Lead
COP 33.5K
vs ~78K for pregrado Search peers
▼ 57% cheaper than peers
Dynamic : Avg CPC
COP 1.5K
peers run 4.2K to 5.9K
▼ ~80% post-rebuild
Leads by campaign
The Dynamic campaign (in pink) is the #1 lead generator.
Cost per lead by campaign
Lower is better. The Dynamic campaign sits in the efficient half, far below its pregrado Search peers.
| Campaign | Type | Leads | Cost / Lead | CPC | Spend |
|---|
Campaign snapshot window: Jun 6 to 17, 2026 (12 days, post-rebuild). Some search-query overlap between the Dynamic and manual Search campaigns is expected. Conversions are Google Ads reported and may backfill for a few days. The monthly trend above (Mar to May) is the like-for-like full-month comparison.