How Fusion Dental Implants Generated $977K in Revenue from $73K in Total Ad Spend

High Spend, High Volume, Zero Accountability

Fusion Dental Implants runs two high-volume implant practices in the Sacramento metro area, with average case values north of $10,000 for full-arch procedures. Before Creekside, they were spending roughly $30,000 per month on self-managed Meta campaigns and generating plenty of leads.

The problem was simple: nobody could tell which leads were becoming patients. Their forms were frictionless by design, with no qualifying questions, no financial screening, and no intent signals. Leads poured in, the call center got buried, and there was no way to connect a Facebook form submission to a Salesforce closed case.

With no UTM structure and no attribution in place, their entire ad budget was essentially unaccountable. They were generating leads but had no way to prove what those leads were worth or which campaigns were actually driving revenue.

Three Channels, One Revenue Loop

Creekside restructured the marketing operation across three layers.

First, we rebuilt the Meta account by location (Roseville, El Dorado Hills) and language (English, Spanish), added qualifying questions to every lead form, and launched the practice's two strongest offers: $1,850 single implant and 20% off full arch. The single-implant creative went live and hit a 3.4% CTR against a 1.5% category average.

Second, we launched a programmatic display channel to reach income-qualified, geofenced audiences that Meta's health-category restrictions won't allow. In the first 10 days, programmatic delivered 100,000 impressions at a $5 CPM, adding a top-of-funnel layer the Meta campaigns alone couldn't cover.

Third, we built the revenue attribution infrastructure from scratch. We implemented a UTM tagging structure across all campaigns and worked with Fusion's Salesforce team to connect lead form submissions to closed cases. For the first time, their marketing team could open Salesforce and see which campaigns, audiences, and offers were actually producing patients.

We Raised CPL on Purpose. Then Brought It Back Down.

When we added qualifying questions to the lead forms, the cost per lead went up. For a few weeks, CPL climbed to around $30-32. That was expected.

Frictionless forms are cheap because they let everyone through. They also send unqualified leads straight to a call center that then has to sort them out manually. That's not a lead generation problem, it's an operations tax.

As we refined audiences and creative angles over the following weeks, CPL came back down. By month three, the 30-day average was $20.99. Same cost per lead as before. But where they used to see roughly 10% of leads come through unqualified, that number was now 3-4%. The call center was talking to people who had already told us they were interested in implants, financially ready, and looking to book.

What Changed in 90 Days

Where the Leads Came From

The strongest performers were the core campaigns running across Roseville English, EDH English, and Roseville Spanish. Spanish-language campaigns consistently delivered the lowest CPL in the account, reaching as low as $10.58 per lead in peak weeks.

The newer Creekside-structured campaigns were built to test offer angles and audience structures the existing campaigns weren't covering. CPL runs higher on newer campaigns while they gather data. By the end of the engagement, those campaigns were contributing meaningful volume at improving efficiency.

Across the full 90 days, the account delivered 2,543 leads at a blended $25.26 CPL. The 30-day CPL at close had settled at $20.99.