More broadband orders on 76% less media spend
For a UK broadband provider, Meta Ads recorded 19% more online broadband orders in Q3 2026 than in Q3 2024, while quarterly media spend fell by approximately 76%.
- Client
- An anonymous UK broadband provider
- Channel and goal
- Meta Ads for online broadband orders
- Main comparison
- July–September 2024 and July–September 2026
- More recorded online orders, from 321 to 382
- 19%
- Less media spend
- 76%
- Lower media cost per recorded order
- About 80%
Q3 2024 compared with Q3 2026. These are Meta-attributed order events, rather than independently reconciled customer or activated-service counts. The comparison shows media efficiency; it does not establish revenue, profitability or the number of additional orders caused by advertising.
Building Meta Ads around the broadband order journey
We launched the broadband provider’s Meta Ads account in March 2024. The job was to generate completed online broadband orders, with line checks providing an earlier indication of activity in the buying journey.
A line check shows whether someone can get a service at their address. It is a useful step to measure, but it is still some distance from an order. The account reporting therefore followed the journey through to the completed online order event, rather than treating cheaper traffic or more line checks as the final result.
How the campaigns and measurement were structured
We separated prospecting by broadband network, used lookalike audiences alongside remarketing and tracked the journey through to online order events.
Read more about the campaign setup and measurement
Separate the broadband networks
Prospecting campaigns were separated for CityFibre and Openreach. This allowed audiences and budgets to be managed for each network, rather than combining both within one prospecting campaign.
Use prospecting and remarketing together
Lookalike audiences were split into 0–4% and 4–10% bands, with nationwide remarketing alongside. This was the account structure used; the results below cover the whole account rather than a test isolating any one audience.
Measure the steps towards an order
Reporting tracked line checks and completed online order events. Package customisation was added to the tracked journey in 2025, providing a further view of activity between the initial check and the order.
Judge media efficiency against orders
The key outcome in this case study is recorded online orders, with media spend divided by those events to calculate cost per order. Earlier journey steps provided context, rather than being counted as orders.
More recorded orders at a lower media cost
Q3 2024 was the highest-spend quarter in the supplied figures. Two years later, the account recorded 61 more orders in the same three calendar months, while spending approximately 76% less on media.
The wider record gives that comparison some context. Q3 2026 was not the highest-volume quarter: Q1 2025 recorded 393 orders. It did, however, have the lowest media cost per recorded order in the supplied quarterly data.
Budget changes also matter. Lower spend in later quarters reflected the provider’s budget decisions, so these figures should not be read as a forecast of what would happen if the earlier budget were restored.
View the full quarterly results: 11 quarters
| Quarter | Media spend change vs Q3 2024 | Recorded orders | Media cost per order change vs Q3 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 2024 | -87.5% | 46 | -12.7% |
| Q2 2024 | -7.2% | 321 | -7.2% |
| Q3 2024 | 0% (baseline) | 321 | 0% (baseline) |
| Q4 2024 | -49.0% | 224 | -26.9% |
| Q1 2025 | -33.1% | 393 | -45.4% |
| Q2 2025 | -37.3% | 335 | -40.0% |
| Q3 2025 | -47.3% | 268 | -36.9% |
| Q4 2025 | -78.5% | 182 | -62.2% |
| Q1 2026 | -76.7% | 188 | -60.2% |
| Q2 2026 | -75.7% | 267 | -70.8% |
| Q3 2026 | -75.6% | 382 | -79.5% |
Source: supplied Meta Ads Manager quarterly figures. Q1 2024 covers March only. Spend and media cost per order are shown as percentage changes relative to Q3 2024. Percentages are calculated from supplied rounded spend and order counts; actual budgets and unit costs are withheld. Orders use the attribution definition above.
The useful result was the balance between volume and spend
Lower spend would have been less useful if orders had fallen at the same rate. In the Q3 comparison, recorded order volume increased while the media budget fell. That is the main result this case study supports.
For the business, the next step is to reconcile those order events with its own records: which orders were accepted, which services became active and what value those customers generated. Those commercial outcomes are outside the figures supplied here.
How to read these results
- Orders: completed online order events tracked by the Meta pixel and attributed in Meta Ads Manager. They have not been independently reconciled with the provider’s own order or activated-service records for this case study.
- Attribution: the supplied figures use a 7-day click or 1-day view window. Customers may also have encountered the provider’s other marketing, so attributed orders do not establish incremental sales.
- Costs: media spend only, excluding management fees and other acquisition costs. Cost per recorded order is not a measure of profit or total customer acquisition cost.
- Comparison: the same calendar quarter two years apart, using whole-account reporting. This is an observed before-and-after comparison, rather than a controlled test establishing which campaign changes caused the improvement.
Is your paid media reaching the right outcome?
If your reporting stops at clicks or early enquiries, it can be difficult to judge what the account is delivering. Request a free account audit to review the campaigns and how their results are being measured.