We Tested Cheap Leads vs Gated Forms

23 Oct 2026 · 1 min

Watch on YouTube

0:47

In this segment of his YouTube video, Eric Deeran describes an advertising experiment where he ran two parallel lead‑generation campaigns. The first campaign was optimized solely for the lowest possible cost‑per‑call (CPC), while the second used a gated form that asked 3‑4 qualifying questions based on the BANT framework (Budget, Authority, Need, Timing). Although the gated‑form campaign produced a higher cost per call and a higher cost per lead, Deeran compares the actual closed deals from both campaigns and finds that the gated approach delivered a higher return on investment (ROI). The segment challenges the common assumption that the cheapest lead automatically yields a net positive outcome, highlighting the value of lead qualification in driving profitable conversions.

Chapters

And it's interesting because we've done a test between running ads where we're trying to get the cheapest cost per call and you think that hey, you know, if I get the cheapest cost per call or cost per lead, I'll get more leads which means I should be a net positive at the end of the day but we've run a test where we ran one campaign where it was like just trying to get the cheapest cost per call possible and then I had another campaign where we basically tried to run like we ran it at a gated form where we had like 3 to 4 questions in there following a BANT framework so budget, authority, need, timing. And so when we had questions like that, obviously the cost per call was more expensive, but when we compared those 2 campaigns side by side and we said, okay, let's take a look at like what actually closed, the ROI on the campaign where we had more questions, it had a higher cost per call and a higher cost per lead, actually had a higher ROI than the campaign where we were just running it broad open.