Case Study · Automotive & Google Ads
A Pakenham smash repairer was spending about $2,200 a month on Google Ads and couldn’t tell whether it was working. We didn’t raise the budget. We rebuilt how it was structured, targeted and measured.
A Pakenham-based smash repair specialist providing automotive repair services across Pakenham and surrounding suburbs in Melbourne’s south-east. Their services include:
They had run Google Ads for about 12 months and were spending around $2,200 a month. They were getting traffic. What they weren’t getting was consistency or visibility: some weeks brought four or five enquiries, others almost none.
More importantly, the business couldn’t confidently answer a simple question: “Is our Google Ads spend actually generating business?”
When we audited the account, it was clear that raising the budget would have simply spent more money the same way. Structural and tracking problems were stopping the existing budget from working.
Phone calls and website enquiries were not properly attributed to Google Ads. The business could see clicks, but not which keywords, ads or campaigns produced real opportunities.
Smash, insurance, accident and other repairs were grouped in the same campaign and ad group, as if the intent behind every search was identical. It wasn’t.
Heavy use of broad match let Google show ads for searches that weren’t closely aligned with the services the business wanted to prioritise.
Ads used generic messaging such as “smash repairs in Pakenham”, not the specific reason someone was searching.
Paid traffic went mainly to the homepage, not to pages built around individual services and customer intent.
Search Partners were enabled, irrelevant search terms weren’t consistently excluded and location targeting was too broad.
The business was paying for traffic that had little chance of becoming a profitable repair job.
Rather than tweaking the existing account, we rebuilt the Google Ads system around the services that mattered most commercially:
We separated campaigns and ad groups by service instead of grouping everything together. That created a much stronger link between what someone searched, the keyword, the ad and the page they land on. Someone searching for an insurance repair sees messaging and content specific to an insurance claim, not a generic smash repair ad.
Illustrative example of the search-to-page chain.
We moved away from the broad-match-heavy structure and focused mainly on phrase and exact match, which gave us far more control over which searches consumed the budget. We also reviewed the search terms that triggered the ads: as often as daily during the initial optimisation period, and weekly as the campaign matured.
We created and continually expanded negative keyword lists to remove searches that were unlikely to become repair customers. The goal wasn’t more traffic. It was more commercially relevant enquiries.
The campaign focused on Pakenham and surrounding suburbs within about 10 to 15 kilometres. We didn’t simply target every suburb in that radius. Areas with unusually high numbers of competing repairers, or where the economics were less attractive, were excluded, so more of the budget went where the business had a real chance of winning.
Illustrative diagram, not to scale.
Generic ads were replaced with messaging aligned to what customers actually cared about. The new ads addressed:
The ads became far more relevant to the customer’s immediate problem.
Instead of sending every visitor to the homepage, we built landing pages around the core services being advertised, so the experience after the click matched the promise made in the ad.
Illustrative wireframe of a service landing page, not the live page.
Using Google Tag Manager, we tracked the customer actions that matter and connected each enquiry back to the keyword, ad and campaign that produced it. For the first time, the business could make Google Ads decisions using actual enquiry data, not just impressions and clicks.
The previous campaign had focused on generating clicks. Once reliable conversion tracking and enough data were in place, we could optimise for real enquiries instead. The process was deliberately ongoing, not a one-off rebuild.
Repeated continually as new conversion data comes in
Within about 60 days the difference was substantial. The monthly Google Ads budget stayed at about $2,200 throughout.
+243%
7 → 24 enquiries a month, or about 3.4× more, on the same budget.
−71%
Before: $2,200 ÷ 7 = ~$314
After: $2,200 ÷ 24 = ~$92
| Metric | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly Google Ads budget | ~$2,200 | ~$2,200 |
| Monthly enquiries | ~7 | ~24 |
| Cost per enquiry | ~$314 | ~$92 |
| Relevant enquiry quality | Inconsistent and unclear | 24 relevant enquiries |
| Conversion tracking | Inadequate | Calls and forms tracked |
| Landing page strategy | Homepage | Service-specific pages |
| Campaign structure | Services grouped together | Intent and service-led |
| Keyword strategy | Broad-match heavy | Phrase and exact focused |
Note: Figures are approximate monthly figures before the rebuild and about 60 days after it. Enquiries are tracked phone calls and website form or quote submissions. Cost per enquiry is the monthly budget divided by monthly enquiries.
The improvement wasn’t driven by generating more low-quality leads. The 24 enquiries were relevant potential customers looking for the services the business actually provides. Job seekers, suppliers, DIY searches and other irrelevant traffic were filtered out through tighter keyword targeting and negative keyword management.
The client also reported an increase in revenue of roughly 50–60% during the improved campaign period. Individual smash repair jobs were typically worth at least $3,000–$4,000, with larger jobs reaching about $10,000, so improving the quality and consistency of the enquiry pipeline mattered far more than the lead numbers alone suggest.
Revenue figures reflect the client’s reported business performance during the period. They should not be read as revenue solely attributable to Google Ads unless supported by sales attribution data.
It was confidence. Before, the business spent about $2,200 every month without being able to see clearly whether Google Ads was contributing meaningful business. After tracking was in place, the question changed.
“Is Google Ads working?”
Google Ads became a measurable customer acquisition channel, not an advertising expense that was hard to justify.
“Dealing with Isuru at Oz Media Digital Agency has been an excellent experience.
He is highly knowledgeable and has helped my automotive accident repair business (SEAB) grow through effective Google marketing. I am very pleased with his service and professionalism, and I highly recommend him to anyone looking to take their business to the next level.”
Pakenham smash repair clientAutomotive accident repair business
The client didn’t need a larger Google Ads budget. They needed the existing budget to work harder. The results came from making the whole acquisition system work together:
Poor Google Ads performance doesn’t always mean the platform is ineffective or that more budget is needed. Sometimes the real problem is how the campaign has been built, measured and optimised.
If your Google Ads produce clicks but not enough enquiries, or you can’t tell what’s working, a bigger budget may not be the answer. Book a free 30-minute strategy session and we’ll look at how your account is built, measured and optimised.
How to run PPC that protects your budget and delivers measurable ROI, not just clicks.
Read more
Cost per lead benchmarks, how to calculate it, and why a "cheap" lead can still cost you money.
Read more
A plain-English breakdown of ad spend, management fees, and what actually drives cost per lead.
Read more
OZ Media Digital