Why This IFA Stopped Running Their Own Ads

The Background

This London-based IFA runs a one-person practice specialising in pensions, investments, and financial planning. With 12 years of experience and a strong reputation among existing clients, the business was stable — but growth had plateaued. Referrals generated 3-5 new enquiries per month, which was enough to maintain revenue but not enough to grow.

The IFA had read extensively about Facebook advertising for financial services and decided to try generating their own leads. They invested in a course on Meta advertising, set up their Business Manager, built landing pages, and started running campaigns targeting pension review and retirement planning audiences.

The DIY Advertising Experience

Here's an honest account of the IFA's 8 months running their own Facebook ads, based on the data they shared with us:

Month 1 (Setup): Two weeks spent setting up Business Manager, pixel, landing pages, and ad creatives. The IFA estimated 20 hours of setup time. First ads launched mid-month. Ad spend: £450. Leads generated: 3. Cost per lead: £150. All three leads were low quality — two didn't answer, one wasn't interested in financial advice.

Months 2-3 (Learning): Multiple ad variations tested. Landing page redesigned twice. The IFA spent 8-10 hours per week managing campaigns, watching tutorials, and making adjustments. Ad spend: £1,200 per month. Leads generated: 8-12 per month. Cost per lead: £100-£150. Contact rate was around 50%. One client acquired across both months.

Months 4-6 (Improvement): Campaigns began stabilising. The IFA found an ad format (short video talking about pension freedoms) that resonated. Cost per lead improved to £40-£60. Monthly spend: £1,500. Leads: 25-35 per month. But time commitment remained high — 6-8 hours per week on campaign management, creative production, and landing page testing. Three clients acquired across these three months.

Months 7-8 (Plateau and frustration): Ad fatigue set in. The successful video ad's performance declined as frequency increased. New creatives didn't perform as well. Cost per lead crept back up to £60-£80. The IFA was spending 8 hours per week on advertising — nearly a full working day — on top of their client-facing responsibilities. Two more clients acquired across these months.

8-month totals:

• Total ad spend: £10,350
• Landing page tools, creative costs: £1,400
• Facebook ads course: £500
• Time invested: approximately 280 hours (35 hours/month average)
• Total leads generated: approximately 145
• Average cost per lead: £84 (direct costs only)
• Clients acquired: 6
• Cost per acquisition: £2,042 (direct costs only)
• Value of time (at £75/hour): £21,000
• True cost per acquisition (including time): £5,542

The IFA was quick to acknowledge that their campaigns had improved significantly over the 8 months. Given another 6-12 months, costs would likely have continued to improve. But the time investment was the deal-breaker. As a sole practitioner, every hour spent on advertising was an hour not spent with clients or on business development.

The Switch to Purchased Leads

The IFA approached us looking for pension and financial planning leads. We recommended starting with 8 leads per week — a manageable volume for a sole practitioner — across pension review and retirement planning categories.

Month 1 with Lurvo: 34 leads delivered. Average cost: £32 per lead. Contact rate: 71% (24 leads contacted). Appointments booked: 8. Clients onboarded: 3. The IFA was spending zero hours on advertising and roughly 2 hours per week on lead follow-up — the calls themselves were productive client conversations, not marketing admin.

Months 2-3: The IFA refined their initial call approach for purchased leads. They found that pension leads responded best to a consultative opening: 'I understand you've been looking into your pension options — can I ask what's prompted that?' This naturally led to discussions about approaching retirement, concern about pension performance, or interest in pension freedoms.

Results stabilised: 32-36 leads per month, 74% contact rate, 12% lead-to-client conversion rate. Monthly lead spend of approximately £1,050 generating 4 new clients per month.

The ROI Comparison

After 3 months with Lurvo, the IFA had enough data to make a direct comparison. Here's how the numbers stacked up:

The cost per acquisition with purchased leads was 62% lower on direct costs alone, and 93% lower when accounting for time. More importantly, the IFA was acquiring clients at 5x the rate, with a fraction of the time investment.

Monthly revenue impact: With an average initial advice fee of £950 per pension client (plus ongoing fees), the 4 clients per month generated approximately £3,800 in initial revenue from £1,050 in lead spend — a 3.6x return before counting ongoing advice fees, which add long-term recurring revenue to each client relationship.

What the IFA Says Now

Six months after switching, the IFA shared these reflections:

On the decision: 'Running my own ads taught me a lot about how lead generation works, and I don't regret the experience. But the time cost was unsustainable for a sole practitioner. I'm an adviser, not a digital marketer. The 8 hours a week I've got back are now spent on client meetings and referral networking — activities that actually grow my business.'

On lead quality: 'The quality difference between shared Facebook leads I was generating with broad targeting and the exclusive, verified leads from Lurvo was noticeable from day one. My leads had verified phone numbers, detailed pension information, and genuine intent. My self-generated leads were often people who'd clicked out of curiosity.'

On the economics: 'Even if I got my DIY cost per lead down to £30 — which I think I eventually could have — the time cost makes it uneconomical for a sole practitioner. Larger firms with dedicated marketing staff might reach a different conclusion, but for me, buying leads is clearly the right choice.'

Key Learnings

DIY advertising works, but it has a time cost. The IFA's campaigns did improve over 8 months, and with more time, they would likely have become more cost-effective on a per-lead basis. The issue wasn't effectiveness — it was the opportunity cost of a qualified adviser spending 8 hours per week on marketing instead of advice.

Sole practitioners face a unique trade-off. For a firm with a dedicated marketing person, DIY advertising often makes long-term sense. For sole practitioners who are both the adviser and the business owner, the time investment tips the balance firmly towards purchased leads.

Exclusivity and verification change the equation. The IFA's self-generated leads weren't verified or exclusive (they went to a landing page anyone could fill in), which contributed to the lower contact rate. The SMS verification and exclusivity of purchased leads produced a fundamentally different consumer experience.

The 'DIY first, then outsource' path has merit. The IFA's 8 months of running their own ads gave them an informed perspective on what lead generation involves. They could evaluate our service as an informed buyer rather than a passive consumer. Several of our most satisfied long-term clients followed a similar path — they tried it themselves, understood the work involved, and chose to outsource from a position of knowledge.

Time reclaimed has compound value. The 8 hours per week the IFA recovered didn't just save cost — they generated revenue. More client meetings led to more revenue, which led to more referrals, which led to more revenue. The compounding effect of reallocating time from marketing admin to client work was the most significant benefit of the switch.