iDroid Academy Meta ads campaign performance case study

📋 Case Study — iDroid Academy

Branx.in | Performance Marketing — Meta Ads

The Client

iDroid Academy – a Bhopal-based digital marketing training institute helping students, freelancers, and working professionals build practical skills in SEO, social media, and digital advertising. Like most training institutes, iDroid Academy’s growth depends on a steady flow of genuine admission enquiries – not just “leads” sitting unused in a spreadsheet.

The Background

iDroid Academy’s brief was simple and specific: focus purely on offline admissions for their Bhopal centre. Going online was on the roadmap, but not the immediate priority. Before Branx, the institute had already worked with 3 different agencies/freelancers – each one changed because the results just weren’t showing up.

The first campaign Branx ran was a WhatsApp Messaging Ads test, and it brought in good volume – but a large chunk of those conversations were junk: job seekers, internship hunters, and casual chats with zero real intent to join a course.

To fix this, Branx ran a second test – Lead Form Ads – on one specific hypothesis: a form-fill step should filter out junk before it even reaches the team. And it worked – Campaign 1’s leads were visibly cleaner, almost zero wrong-audience entries.

But that raised the real question this case study is built around:

If reducing junk also reduces lead volume and changes CPL and conversion rate, is “cleaner” actually “better” for the business?

So both formats were run side-by-side and measured on the numbers that actually matter – CPL, conversion rate, cost per admission, and ROAS for each format, plus a final blended ROAS for the combined test.

To keep this a true apples-to-apples comparison, both campaigns used the exact same creative – same reel, same caption, same targeting. The only variable changed was the lead-capture path: Form Fill vs WhatsApp Chat. This meant any difference in results could be attributed directly to that one change – not to creative, audience, or messaging differences.

And the entire test – both campaigns, full funnel tracking, and a clear final call – was completed in just 22 days.

Our Approach

Instead of running one generic campaign, Branx designed and ran two parallel test campaigns with the same end goal – course admissions – but two different lead-capture mechanisms:

	Campaign 1	Campaign 2
Objective	Lead Form (instant in-app form)	Messaging Conversations (WhatsApp/Messenger chat)
Duration	03 Jun – 12 Jun 2026 (10 days)	22 May – 12 Jun 2026 (22 days)
Mechanism	User fills a form inside Meta, lead lands directly with the team	User starts a chat → gets qualified in conversation → admission follow-up

Every single lead was then tracked manually through the entire funnel – Reach → Clicks → Leads/Conversations → Follow-up Status → Admission – so we could calculate the metric that actually matters: Cost Per Admission and ROAS, not just cost per lead.

Campaign 1: Lead Form Ads – Performance Snapshot

Metric	Value
Amount Spent	₹2,675.96
Reach	24,870 Meta Accounts
Impressions	35,720
Clicks (All)	178
CTR	0.50%
CPC	₹15.03
Leads Generated	12 (11 Valid)
Cost Per Valid Lead	₹243.27
Video ThruPlays	776
Cost Per ThruPlay	₹3.45

Lead Quality: 7 Students, 3 Freelancers, 1 Business Owner – almost no irrelevant or “wrong audience” enquiries.

Conversion Funnel:

24,870 Reach → 178 Clicks → 12 Leads → 11 Valid Leads → 1 Confirmed Admission

(+ 1 High-Potential Lead still in pipeline)

Key Conversion Rates:

Click → Lead: 6.74%
Lead → Admission: 9.09% (1 confirmed) – could rise to 18.18% if the pipeline lead converts

Business Outcome:

Revenue: ₹15,000
Profit: ₹12,324.04
ROAS: 5.61X
Cost Per Admission: ₹2,676

Campaign 2: Messaging Conversation Ads – Performance Snapshot

Metric	Value
Total Spend	₹3,853.13
Reach	43,750 Meta Accounts
Impressions	95,791
Frequency	2.19
Clicks (All)	407
CTR	0.42%
CPC	₹9.47
Conversations Started	75
Cost Per Conversation	₹51.38
Leads Recorded	61
Cost Per Lead	₹63.17
Lead Leakage	18.67% (14 conversations never logged as leads)

Lead Quality: 22 Genuine Course Enquiries (Graphic Design / Digital Marketing / Both), 12 Job Seekers & Interns, 7 Not Interested / Wrong-Audience entries, and 20 Unanswered Leads – a far more mixed audience than Campaign 1, with both junk and follow-up gaps noticeably higher.

Conversion Funnel:

43,750 Reach → 95,791 Impressions → 407 Clicks → 75 Conversations → 61 Qualified Leads → 4 Admissions

Key Conversion Rates:

Click → Conversation: 18.43%
Conversation → Lead: 81.33%
Lead → Admission: 6.56%
Reach → Admission: 0.009%

Business Outcome:

Revenue: ₹60,000
Profit: ₹56,146.87
ROAS: 15.57X
Cost Per Admission: ₹963.28

Head-to-Head: Which Format Actually Wins?

Metric	Campaign 1 (Lead Form)	Campaign 2 (Messaging)	Winner
Ad Spend	₹2,675.96	₹3,853.13	Lead Form (lower spend)
CTR	0.50%	0.42%	Lead Form
CPC	₹15.03	₹9.47	Messaging
Leads Generated	12	61	Messaging (5x volume)
Cost Per Lead	₹243.27	₹63.17	Messaging (74% cheaper)
Admissions	1 confirmed (+1 pipeline)	4 confirmed	Messaging (4x)
Conversion Rate	9.09%	6.56%	Lead Form
Cost Per Admission	₹2,676	₹963	Messaging (64% cheaper)
Revenue	₹15,000	₹60,000	Messaging
Profit	₹12,324	₹56,147	Messaging
ROAS	5.61X	15.57X	Messaging

Lead Quality vs Lead Volume – The Real Trade-off

This is where the data tells the full story:

Campaign 1 produced cleaner leads – mostly genuine students, almost zero job-seekers or “wrong audience” enquiries. But the volume was too low (only 11 valid leads in 10 days).
Campaign 2 produced 5x more leads and 4x more admissions, but the mix included more job-seekers, internship-seekers, and casual enquiries – plus an 18.67% lead leakage (real conversations that never got logged as proper leads).
Follow-up discipline also differed sharply: Campaign 1 had only 2 missed follow-ups, while Campaign 2 had 15+ unanswered leads.

The insight: even with a slightly “noisier” lead mix, volume + decent follow-up beat quality + low volume – a 6.56% lead-to-admission rate on 61 leads (4 admissions) generated far more revenue than a 9.09% rate on just 11 leads (1 admission). And the 18.67% leakage is a fixable gap – closing it could push admissions even higher from the same spend.

Combined Business Impact (Both Campaigns, Test Phase)

Metric	Value
Total Ad Spend	₹6,529.09
Total Valid Leads	72
Total Confirmed Admissions	5 (6 if pipeline lead converts)
Total Revenue Generated	₹75,000
Total Profit	₹68,470.91
Blended ROAS	11.49X
Blended Cost Per Admission	₹1,305.82

What This Means For iDroid Academy

By A/B testing two campaign formats side-by-side – and tracking the entire funnel down to real admissions, not just leads – Branx helped iDroid Academy:

Identify Messaging Conversation Ads as the clearly higher-ROI format for this audience
Cut cost per admission by 64% – from ₹2,676 down to ₹963
Build a data-backed framework to scale future budget confidently toward the winning format
Surface a fixable 18.67% lead leakage that, once closed, can unlock even more admissions from the same spend

Investment & Results

Service	Meta Ads Management (Performance Marketing)
Test Duration	22 May – 12 Jun 2026
Total Ad Spend (Test Phase)	₹6,529.09
Total Valid Leads Generated	72
Total Confirmed Admissions	5 (6 if pipeline lead converts)
Total Revenue Generated	₹75,000
Total Profit	₹68,470.91
Blended Cost Per Lead	₹90.68
Blended Cost Per Admission	₹1,305.82
Blended ROAS	11.49X

Want a similar data-backed Meta Ads strategy for your institute or business? 📩 hello@branx.in | 📞 +91-7654027075 | 🌐 www.branx.in

iDroid Academy

Meta Ads A/B Test — Lead Form vs Messaging Conversations

iDroid Academy needed clarity on which Meta Ads format actually drives admissions, not just leads. Branx ran a controlled two-campaign test across both formats, tracked the full funnel to real admissions, and uncovered a format that cut cost-per-admission by 64% — delivering an 11.49X blended ROAS.