Everything the relaunch has done since it went live on July 22, what the leads are telling us, and a set of new visual directions for you to pick from.
One campaign, one ad set, one creative, kept deliberately simple so Meta's learning keeps building instead of resetting. The image is the render that carried the old account, with copy rewritten to open on the $799,000 price and the 25 minutes to Whistler rather than the storage space. It runs to Metro Vancouver and the Sea to Sky corridor together at $20 a day, into the higher intent form with the confirm step and the extra questions.
Running since the relaunch, and the only creative in the account right now. Everything in section 6 is a proposal to sit alongside or replace it.
Built to collect leads rather than clicks. Housing rules apply, so there is no age or interest targeting and the creative does the selecting.
Three weeks of continuous delivery, July 22 to August 11. The headline is the cost per lead: the expectation we set when we added the confirm step and the extra questions was that leads would get more expensive in exchange for being better qualified, somewhere in the $30 range. They have come in at $12.34.
At $20 a day the campaign is producing about 1.6 leads a day, so roughly 47 a month, and it is doing it while the click rate sits above the account's own history. The rebuild in early August is worth noting too: after the form change, the current ad has actually settled cheaper than the original, at $10.98 a lead across its own run versus $13.60 for the first three weeks. Nothing was lost in the switch. The one number to keep an eye on is frequency, now at 3.2, which is the natural point at which fresh creative starts to earn its keep.
The first form asked people where they live, and every one of those 17 leads answered before the question had to come off. It is the clearest answer we have to the Vancouver question, and it is one sided: 15 of the 17 live in the Sea to Sky corridor, with more than half in Whistler itself, even though Metro Vancouver makes up the large majority of the people the ads can actually reach.
The buyer the message was written for, the person who works around Whistler and had written off owning there, is exactly who is putting their hand up. That is a strong signal for the creative choices in section 6: the angles that lead on price and on the 25 minutes are speaking to the people actually responding. Vancouver stays in the pool because it costs nothing to keep and it was the volume layer historically, but the corridor is carrying this campaign.
Across all 33 leads, not one has come through as a realtor, which is the filter doing its job. Ten have given a real buying window, and the rest describe themselves as researching, which is the honest answer you would expect this early for a purchase of this size.
The comments box is where it gets genuinely useful. Eleven people typed a real question rather than skipping it, and they cluster tightly around one theme: they want to see layouts, floor plans, sizes and what each one costs. That is a buyer moving from interest to evaluation, and it is something the ads can start answering directly.
“Want to know more about zoning laws, strata and other costs. Also would love to see floor plan break downs with costs.”
“All the details. Strata, zoning for rental options, space for toys, flood plane level details, community and town of Pemberton growth plan (proper hospital, full community center, etc).”
“What is the smallest size space for sale and how much?”
“Are there stand alone homes available?”
Placements are automatic, so Meta decides where the budget goes. It has settled on the same answer the account's history gave: the Facebook feed does the heavy lifting, taking 63% of spend at the best click rate in the account and returning 23 of the 33 leads. The square image is built for that placement, which is a large part of why it performs there.
Stories and reels are tall, full screen placements, and a square image sits in the middle of them with empty space above and below. About a quarter of the budget is currently going into those formats with a square asset. Giving each new creative a proper vertical version is the single most direct improvement available, and it is built into the plan in section 7.
These are concepts rather than finished ads, put together so you can react to the direction before we invest in producing anything properly. They run from closest to what you have now through to a genuinely different look. Some detail will be rough at this stage; whatever you like gets rebuilt cleanly with your real logo files and renderings.
You are not picking one. Tell us which you like and which you do not, and we will build the winners out into a proper test. If none of it is right, that is a useful answer too, and a note on what feels off is enough for us to come back with a different set.
Nothing changes except what your eye lands on first. Same image, same colours, same logo placement. This is the cleanest read on whether the message is what matters, because everything else is held still.
The $799,000 is the biggest thing on the card, with Pemberton and the drive time underneath.
Leads on the 25 minutes to Whistler, with the price as the supporting line.
Kept in as the baseline, so there is something honest to measure the others against.
Name, place, one line carrying both the price and the drive time. Nothing else.
Identical styling to the ad running now, moved onto the renderings you sent through. Same green card, same type, same logo. The only thing that changes is which view of The Alders people see, which keeps the brand consistent while giving the ads something new to show.
The closer, quieter view of one building, with the price leading.
The spring streetscape with people and bikes, leading on the 25 minutes.
The mountain backdrop with price and drive time stacked as equals.
Leads on the community idea rather than the numbers, with price kept at the bottom.
Here the layout itself changes: a top banner, a light panel, a corner block instead of the one green card every time. The first two also bring the inside of the homes into the ads, which nothing running today does.
The view from a deck, with a tighter block anchored in the bottom corner.
Kitchen and living space, text sitting in the clean ceiling area rather than on a card.
A banner across the top carrying four short selling points, price panel underneath.
The furthest from what runs today. Editorial type, script headlines, icon rows and a price roundel. Worth including so you can see the full range, even if the answer is that it goes too far.
Large mixed type over a darkened left side, everything stacked in one column.
Serif headline on a light interior, features in a green panel, price in its own white block.
A curved brush edge under the image, with the three key facts as an icon row.
A circular badge carrying the price and drive time, sitting beside a shorter headline.
The campaign is doing what it was built to do, so this is about building on it rather than changing course.
Whichever concepts you like get rebuilt at full quality from your own renderings and brand files. We would put two or three into rotation against the current ad rather than replacing it outright, so the comparison is fair and nothing that is already working gets switched off.
Every new creative also gets a tall version built for stories and reels, rather than a square sitting in a tall space. That covers the quarter of the budget currently going into those placements with the wrong shape of image.
The comments are consistent enough to act on: people want floor plans, sizes and what each one costs. One creative built around that, even simply, should pull a more committed enquiry than another exterior shot, and it gives the sales conversation a warmer start.
Enough site visitors and form openers have now pooled to make this worthwhile. It is usually the cheapest source of leads on any account, and it is the thing you flagged early on that has been waiting for enough traffic to work with.