We have a full week of inbound data now. Eleven fit calls booked over 7 days. Four signs. Two referrals out. Five clear nos. This is the breakdown.
This is a Field Note. The point is the specifics, including the parts that did not work.
Total fit calls booked: 11
Calls that signed in week one: 4
Calls where we said no (referred elsewhere): 5
Calls where the prospect said no (price or fit): 2
Calls where we said no but the prospect later signed at higher tier: 0 (none yet, watching)
Source breakdown for the 11 calls:
Cost per booked call:
Cost per signed client (first 4 signs):
Three observations.
One: the Meta ad CAC was lower than expected.
We budgeted internally for a Meta CAC of $200 to $400 per booked call in the first 30 days. The actual $32 was meaningfully lower. The reason appears to be that the LP’s specificity (productized SEO at $497, no contract, fit call required before payment) filters strongly enough that the prospects who click are pre-qualified.
The hypothesis we are testing: an LP that pre-qualifies aggressively trades top-of-funnel clicks for bottom-of-funnel signing rate. Meta ad CTR is mediocre. The booking-call rate from the LP is high. The net is a low CAC because the funnel does the qualification work.
If this holds through 30 days of more spend, the model is more capital-efficient than we expected.
Two: organic traffic from /the-new-search/ converted at a higher rate than from the homepage.
The 2 organic-to-the-LP conversions came from prospects who searched for queries like “productized SEO service” and landed directly on /the-new-search/. The 2 homepage-to-fit-call conversions came from prospects who arrived on the homepage and clicked through to the fit call CTA after reading multiple pages.
The pattern: prospects who arrive deeper in the funnel (already on the LP) convert at higher rates because they have already self-qualified by the time they reach our page. Prospects who arrive at the homepage are earlier in the consideration journey and convert at lower rates.
This is the standard funnel pattern. The implication: the LP should be the primary organic landing target, not the homepage. We are now adjusting internal linking and Search Console targets toward this.
Three: LinkedIn drove one fit call. Word of mouth drove one.
The lowest-volume sources had the highest engagement quality. The LinkedIn call became one of the 4 signs. The word-of-mouth call became another.
The compounding insight: the brand is too young for organic LinkedIn or word-of-mouth to be major sources, but the conversion rate from these sources is much higher than from paid. At maturity (6-12 months in), we expect both to overtake Meta in absolute volume.
The implication: LinkedIn posting cadence and direct relationship building should be funded as long-term moves even though their week-one ROI looks small.
Two things that produced negative signal.
The “tracking tool” prospect segment.
Two of the 5 “no” outcomes were prospects who wanted a tracking tool, not an implementation service. They had been told by their internal team that they needed “AI search visibility” and assumed any AI-search-branded service would tell them where they showed up across engines. We had to explain that we are not a tracking tool. The fit call ended with us recommending Otterly or AthenaHQ.
This was a brief targeting mismatch. The Meta ad copy and the LP both describe NetPageTwo as a service that does the work, but the “AI search” category in 2026 is dominated by tracking tools. Prospects searching for “AI search visibility” sometimes land on us expecting a tool.
The fix: we are adjusting Meta ad copy to lead with “productized SEO and AI search service” rather than “AI search visibility platform.” The difference is small. The filtering effect should be meaningful.
The $397 promo on /the-new-search/ confusing the homepage shoppers.
The LP shows a $397 promo. The homepage shows $497. One prospect on the call asked which one was the real price. The answer is both (promo is for new bookings made this month). The confusion was the issue.
The fix: a more prominent promo expiry date on the LP, plus a small “current promo: $397 through [date]” note on the pricing page. We will see whether the clarification eliminates the question or just moves it.
All 4 first-week signs are in the 5-to-30 employee range. All 4 had tried at least one SEO provider before (either an agency or a freelancer). All 4 booked the call within 48 hours of finding us, not after a multi-week consideration cycle.
The pattern is consistent with the published ICP. The buyer who fits NetPageTwo is small enough to need productized service rather than enterprise SEO, has been burned by traditional agency pricing, and is willing to make a fast yes-or-no decision.
The 4 signs are not all the same vertical. One is a B2B SaaS, one is a productized service like us, one is a professional services firm, one is an e-commerce brand. The cross-vertical fit suggests the productized model can absorb varied verticals as long as the size and team-structure constraints hold.
Three things we are looking for in the next 7 days.
One. Whether the Meta CAC holds at $32 to $50 per call or rises as we scale spend.
Two. Whether the organic-to-LP conversion rate holds at a higher rate than organic-to-homepage. If yes, we accelerate the LP’s organic prominence.
Three. Whether the LinkedIn cadence (3-5 personal posts per week) starts producing more than 1 call per week as the audience grows.
The next Field Note in this series will publish at the 30-day mark with the actual data. If the cadence above is wrong, we will say so.
Related reading:
– Three things we got wrong in our first three weeks
– Why we say no to 3 in 10 fit calls
– We turned down a $4,000-a-month client last week
– About the operator
