Tree Removal Google Ads – Leads at ~20% of Breakeven CPL
A Houston-area tree service wanted to stop competing over shared, third-party leads and build an engine of exclusive demand they actually controlled. We replaced shared-lead vendors with a high-intent Google Ads funnel that consistently generates leads at ~20% of breakeven CPL.
Home services · Tree removal
Google Ads · Search only
From shared leads to exclusive demand
Leads at ~20% of breakeven CPL
At a glance
Lead volume
From 14 → 66 leads/month in ~6 months from exclusive Google Ads.
Record month
155 marketing-qualified leads in October on $7,298.59 ad spend → $47.39 CPL.
Program-to-date
409 leads on $23,108.59 ad spend → $56.50 blended CPL, modeled revenue ≈ $98,160 (≈4.25× ROAS).
Breakeven math: with a 10% close rate and ~$2,400 average job value, breakeven CPL is ≈ $240. We’re consistently acquiring leads between $47–$56 — roughly 20% of breakeven with significant headroom.
Client & starting point
A Houston-area tree service was relying heavily on shared-lead vendors. Leads were sold to 4–6 companies at once, response times were slow, and acquisition costs kept climbing. The owner wanted a predictable, exclusive lead engine that they controlled — not another vendor in the middle.
Challenges
- Shared-lead vendors selling the same customer inquiry to multiple competitors.
- Rising acquisition costs with limited control over volume and quality.
- Inconsistent inbound volume from the company’s own channels (≈14 leads/month baseline).
- No clear view of breakeven CPL or true ROAS from paid efforts.
Goals
- Replace shared-lead vendors with exclusive, high-intent demand.
- Hit a target CPL well under breakeven while maintaining job quality.
- Build a system that could scale into new neighborhoods and higher-value work.
- Clarify “owner’s math” on spend → leads → jobs → revenue.
What we built
We started with a 60-day Google Search test that quickly became the primary growth engine. The focus was on high-intent traffic, tight control of queries, and routing every qualified call into the client’s team with clear economics.
Campaign structure
- Core campaigns around tree removal, tree trimming, and related high-value services.
- Phrase-match clusters around highest-intent queries (no broad match flood).
- 3+ Responsive Search Ads per ad group with DKI + location to match search language.
- Call-first structure with call extensions and site links directing to quote / estimate flows.
- Geographic targeting tuned to profitable service radius, not the entire metro blanket.
Measurement & routing
- Phone-call conversion tracking to separate real sales calls from noise.
- Lead definitions aligned with the owner (MQLs: booked quotes, serious inquiries).
- Negative keywords added weekly based on search term reports.
- Bid and budget management around observed CPL vs. $240 breakeven.
- Reporting focused on spend → MQLs → modeled jobs and revenue, not just clicks.
Inside the numbers
- Baseline: ~14 leads/month from owned channels before the campaign.
- Month 6: ~66 leads/month from Google Ads alone, plus existing sources.
- October: 155 marketing-qualified leads on $7,298.59 spend → $47.39 CPL.
- Program-to-date: 409 leads on $23,108.59 spend → $56.50 blended CPL.
- Modeled revenue: ≈$37,200 for October (10% close × $2,400 AOV) ≈ 5.1× ROAS.
- Program-to-date modeled revenue: ≈$98,160 → ≈4.25× ROAS on ad spend.
- Breakeven CPL: ≈$240 (10% close, $2,400 average job value). Operating CPL: $47–$56 → ~20% of breakeven with significant margin.
This is not a guarantee of future performance. It’s a snapshot of what happened when a local tree service aligned its offers, routing, and Google Ads strategy around unit economics.
Why this worked
- From shared to exclusive: every lead in the system was now exclusive — no competing against 4–6 other contractors for the same job.
- High-intent search only: we focused on buyers looking for tree removal now, not broad “tree service” or research clicks.
- Creative grounded in jobs: ads spoke to emergency removal, storm damage, and big-ticket work the crew actually wanted.
- Clear breakeven math: with a known close rate and AOV, we could confidently push budget until CPL approached breakeven — which it never did.
- Relentless search-term cleanup: weekly negative keywords kept spend pointed at jobs, not tire-kickers.
- Owner-aligned reporting: we reported in jobs and revenue, not just clicks and CTR.
What this could mean for your business
If you run a home-services company with real job values and crews to keep busy, your breakeven math is often more forgiving than it feels. The constraint is usually system — not market demand.
- You may already be able to afford far more leads if your CPL is well below breakeven.
- Shared-lead vendors can hide what’s actually possible with exclusive search demand.
- Once you see true CPL vs. breakeven, it’s easier to decide where to Cut, what to Fix, and what to Double.
Want to see your breakeven math?
If you’re running serious spend into Google Ads, LSAs, or other channels and don’t have a clear view of breakeven CPL, the Revenue Decision Review is designed for you. We plug into your CRM, calendars, call tracking, and ad accounts, then come back with a Cut / Fix / Double plan grounded in your numbers.