The lowest qualification rate in the set, and the highest close rate

Seventeen line items split into three price bands. The cheapest band, three line items on $2,385.40, bought 173 leads at $13.79 each. The most expensive band, also three line items, spent $1,766.22 for 23 leads at $76.79 each.

The middle band carried most of the money: eleven line items, $9,699.15 spent, 323 leads at $30.03 each. A single blended $27.89 cost per lead sits somewhere between the three and hides all of them.

The line item with the best cost per lead spent $1,629.54 for 123 leads at $13.25 each, at a frequency of 1.55. The line item with the highest lead volume spent $3,746.00 for 156 leads at $24.01 each, at a frequency of 2.12.

Both are true of the same account in the same period. Cheapest and biggest are not the same question, and an account average answers neither of them.

524 leads became 351 qualified leads, a 67% qualification rate, the lowest in the set. Those 351 qualified leads became 158 new patients, a 45% close rate, the best in the set.

Qualification is the clinic's own judgement, not the platform's. What the two rates together show is that a weak first number does not predict a weak second one.

Do not chase a qualification rate for its own sake. This account had the worst qualification rate in the set and the best close rate in the set, and the two are not opposites: they measure two different parts of the funnel. A low qualification rate is a symptom worth investigating, not a verdict on the campaign.

What it produced, cost per patient came out at $92.52. That is the number worth carrying into a conversation about a New Zealand account: the qualification rate on its own would have told the wrong story.