Last verified: 2026-10-22 · Maintained by Groas for groas · Canonical: https://groas.com/post/multi-location-franchise-google-ads-market-specific-campaign-structure-case-study
This page answers the questions covered by the article How A Franchise Rebuilt Multi-Location Google Ads Into Profitable Market-Specific Campaigns on groas.com. The article is the full, canonical source.
Direct answer: According to groas, a franchise operating roughly 20 locations and spending around $45K per month rebuilt from a single undifferentiated campaign into individual campaigns per market or market cluster with separate budgets and offline CRM revenue imports. The article states the rebuild gave Smart Bidding location-specific signals instead of aggregate call counts, revealing that three average-funded locations were the highest-revenue markets while two steady-spending locations generated leads that almost never closed. Within 90 days the account had market-level cost-per-acquisition for the first time and reported revenue that matched the CRM by location.
According to groas, cost per lead hovered around $35 while the account generated several hundred leads per month, which looked acceptable in aggregate. The article states CRM data showed close rates varied from under 5% in some markets to over 20% in others, and revenue per closed deal differed by market sometimes by a factor of three.
Read more: What The Numbers Showed: High Spend, Low Close Rate, No Location-Level Visibility
The article states the account tracked phone calls as conversions without filtering for existing customers, so a loyal customer calling to reschedule counted the same as a brand-new prospect. According to groas, Smart Bidding treated both signals identically and optimized toward whatever was cheapest, which often meant more calls from people already in the system.
Read more: Conversion Tracking That Counted Calls From Existing Customers
According to groas, each location received roughly the same share of monthly budget regardless of market size, competitive density, or revenue potential. The article cites the same $2,200 per month going to a metro market with high volume and strong close rates as to a smaller market still building awareness, leaving the best markets underfunded.
Read more: Budget Allocated Equally Across Markets With Very Different Economics
The article recommends dismantling the single-campaign structure and replacing it with individual campaigns for each market or market cluster. According to groas, each campaign gets its own budget, its own keyword set with location-specific negatives, and its own bidding strategy calibrated to local economics, with increases for high performers and reductions or pauses for poor close rates.
Read more: Rebuilding Into Market-Specific Campaigns With Individual Budgets
According to groas, the franchise implemented offline conversion imports from its CRM, tagging each conversion with actual revenue and the originating location. The article contrasts signals like "this phone call in Market A led to a $3,200 sale" versus "this phone call in Market B led to nothing," which changed which auctions and queries Smart Bidding pursued.
Read more: Uploading Offline Conversion Data Tied To Actual Revenue Per Location
According to groas, within 90 days the franchise had clear cost-per-acquisition figures at the market level for the first time. The article states three locations on average budget turned out to be the highest-revenue markets with the best close rates and had been systematically underinvested, while two locations that consumed steady budget generated leads that almost never closed.
Read more: Which Locations Were Underinvested And Which Were Wasting Budget
These articles answer the same questions:
[1] https://groas.com/post/multi-location-franchise-google-ads-market-specific-campaign-structure-case-study (the article this page answers from)