How We Managed Peugeot's Ad Spend Month by Month | A Case Study by Echt Social

From January to March 2026, Echt Social managed performance marketing for Peugeot, Sri Lanka. We ran ads on digital platforms and our goal was to generate leads efficiently. This case study shows month‑by‑month changes in spend, leads, reach, impressions, cost per lead, and CTR.

Take a Look at the Numbers

First, let me run you through the numbers real quick;

Campaign Period

We’re looking at the performance from January to March 2026. That’s a total of 3 months. 

Month‑by‑Month Performance

Here’s a breakdown of how each month did on its own:

MONTH	ADS SPENT	LEADS GENERATED	REACH	IMPRESSIONS	AVG COST PER LEAD	AVG CTR
January	$729.90	513	157,959	678,678	$1.42	2.10%
February	$898.92	674	147,148	738,018	$1.33	2.80%
March	$1049.62	593	213,001	817,934	$1.78	2.37%

In January, we started with a modest budget. The campaign reached over 157k unique users. Impressions were close to 679k. Cost per lead was $1.42. CTR was 2.10%. This became our baseline. This meant that next month, we had to exceed this current target. No pressure!

February showed clear improvement. We spent $169 more than in Jan. Despite reach dropping slightly, impressions went up. More importantly, leads jumped by 161. Cost per lead dropped to $1.33 - the lowest of the three months. CTR also climbed to 2.80%. That is a strong increase in engagement. We’re definitely on the right track here.

March had the highest spend. Reach grew significantly - over 213k unique users. Impressions crossed 817k. Lead volume stayed healthy at 593, which was still higher than January. Cost per lead increased to $1.78. CTR settled at 2.37%, still above January’s level.

The Total Performance Update

METRIC	TOTAL / AVERAGE
Amount spent on ads	$2678.44
Number of leads generated	1780
Reach	518,108
Impressions	2,234,630
Average cost per lead	$1.51
Average CTR (Click-Through Rate)	2.42%

Breaking Down the Numbers to Understand the Situation

January to February

We increased our spending moderately. Lead volume went up more than the ad spend did. Cost per lead went down. CTR improved significantly. That means more people clicked on the ads relative to how many saw them. Reach decreased a little, but impressions increased, so the same people saw the ad more often, or the ad showed up in more placements per user.

Either way, it was much more effective when compared to January.

February to March

We increased our ad spend further. The reach kept growing and we found 65k more unique users. Impressions also grew; lead volume dropped a bit from February but stayed above January. Cost per lead went up because spend grew faster than leads. CTR came down from February’s peak but remained higher than January. 

March was a scaling month: we prioritised reaching new people over keeping the lowest possible cost per lead.

What our Team at Echt Social Did to Reach these Stats

We focused on three things each month: budget, audience, and creative. Here is the breakdown of what we changed and why.

• Budget pacing: We increased ad spend gradually month over month. January tested the baseline. February optimised. March scaled. 

• Audience expansion: Between February and March, we broadened targeting to increase reach. That is why reach jumped 45% in March.

• Creative rotation: We refreshed ad creatives in February, which likely contributed to the CTR increase from 2.10% to 2.80%.

• Placement adjustments: We shifted some budget toward placements that delivered higher impression volume. That explains why impressions grew faster than reach in some months.

Bid strategy

In February we used a cost‑cap bid strategy to keep cost per lead low. In March we switched to a max‑delivery strategy to spend more and reach more people, accepting a higher cost per lead.

• Cost Cap (used in February)

We set a cost cap around $1.40 per lead. The platform found people who were likely to convert within that price. That is why cost per lead dropped to $1.33 - the lowest of the three months.

Trade‑off: The platform spends only when it finds cheap leads. Sometimes that means it spends slower or reaches fewer people. In February, reach actually went down slightly compared to January, but efficiency went up.

• Max Delivery (used in March)

We wanted to reach new people and spent more on that aspect of the campaign. The platform showed ads aggressively to get leads quickly. Cost per lead went up to $1.78, but our reach jumped 45% and impressions grew by 11%.

Trade‑off: You get more volume and faster delivery, but you pay more per lead. That is exactly what happened in March - we prioritised scaling over efficiency.

Key Takeaways of this Case Study

• Best cost efficiency happened in February: $1.33 per lead.

• Best lead volume happened in February: 674 leads.

• Best reach happened in March: 213,001 unique users.

• Best CTR happened in February: 2.80%.

We balanced between low cost per lead (February) and high reach (March), so Peugeot got both efficiency and scale across the quarter.

Want Your Business to Show Up with Good Numbers? Reach Out to Us at Echt Social!

Numbers do not lie. 

In January, we spent $730 and got 513 leads. In March, we spent $1,050 and got 593 leads. Spend went up 44%, leads went up 16%. 

That is not a straight line up, and that is fine. Performance marketing is rarely a perfect upward slope. Some months you optimise for cost. Other months you spend more to find new audiences. 

Over a full quarter, Echt Social delivered 1,780 leads at an average of $1.51 each. That is an impressive price for automotive leads. Peugeot got reach, clicks, and volume. 

Our team did exactly what we promised: ran the numbers, adjusted tactics, and reported clearly.

If you want your business to show the same results, reach out to our team to have a chat!