SEO Case Study: Reduced CPL by 41% in 90 Days for a B2B Cybersecurity SaaS in San Jose
In June 2025, SentinelStack, a B2B cybersecurity SaaS company in San Jose, partnered with Goforaeo to improve paid lead efficiency without sacrificing lead quality. They were already investing in demand gen, but their lead costs were creeping up and the team felt they were paying for too many “curious” clicks.
Over the next 90 days, we tightened targeting, rebuilt key pages, and fixed tracking gaps so every optimization was tied to real leads. By the end of the campaign, CPL dropped by 41% while monthly lead volume increased.
Project snapshot: dates, timeframe, and location:
This was a 90 day performance sprint from June 2, 2025 to August 30, 2025, with May 2025 used as the baseline month. The core market focus was San Jose and nearby Bay Area B2B buyers, with national targeting kept only where intent was proven.
Key details:
• Location: San Jose, California
• Timeframe: June 2, 2025 to August 30, 2025
• Baseline month: May 2025
• Primary KPI: cost per lead from paid channels
• Secondary KPIs: lead volume, lead quality rate, landing page conversion rate, qualified demo requests
Company background: what they sell and who they target:
SentinelStack sells a cybersecurity platform designed for mid market teams that need better visibility, alert triage, and faster incident response without adding headcount. Their most common buyers were IT directors, security managers, and IT operations leaders.
They had solid product marketing, but their paid campaigns had become too broad over time. When volume dipped, the quickest fix was often “add more keywords” or “increase bids,” which made CPL worse month after month.
The offer and lead definition:
Before we changed campaigns, we aligned on what counted as a lead that mattered. A lead was not just any form fill.
A lead was counted only if it was one of the following:
• Demo request submitted through the website
• “Talk to security specialist” form submission
• Trial request (limited to qualified companies)
We also tagged leads as higher quality when they matched basic ICP signals:
• Company size fit
• Industry fit (SaaS, healthcare, finance, B2B services were strongest)
• Clear security need mentioned in the form
• Business email and realistic timeline
Baseline performance in May 2025: before Goforaeo:
May 2025 showed why the team felt stuck. Spend was steady, but cost per lead was high and the sales team said too many leads were not ready.
Baseline metrics for May 2025:
• Paid spend: $19,800
• Paid leads: 64
• CPL: $309
• Landing page conversion rate (paid traffic): 2.4%
• Sales accepted lead rate from paid leads: 28%
• Demo show rate: 61%
What was causing high CPL:
These were the biggest issues we found during the first audit week in June 2025:
• Keyword targeting mixed high intent searches with research intent searches
• Too many broad match terms were pulling in students, job seekers, and small buyers
• Ad groups were messy, which hurt ad relevance and quality score
• Landing pages were product heavy but did not answer buyer questions fast
• Forms were longer than needed and created drop offs on mobile
• Tracking had gaps, so optimization decisions were based on partial data
Tracking and proof setup: how we made the numbers trustworthy:
Before making big changes, we cleaned tracking so CPL and lead quality could be verified end to end. This matters because “CPL improved” is not useful if it’s just a platform number.
In the first 10 days of June 2025, Goforaeo implemented:
• Google Tag Manager: cleaned tags, removed duplicates, fixed firing issues
• Google Analytics 4: clear conversion events for each form type
• Google Ads conversion imports: aligned event names and values
• HubSpot tracking: ensured paid source, campaign, and landing page were captured
• Offline conversion feedback loop: sales accepted leads pushed back into ad optimization
• Looker Studio reporting: one simple dashboard showing spend, leads, CPL, and lead quality rate
This setup helped us answer one question every week: are we paying less for the same quality, or are we just buying cheaper leads that do not convert?
Strategy overview: what we did to bring CPL down fast:
This was not one big change. It was a set of small, logical improvements that stacked together over 90 days. We focused on four areas that usually drive the fastest CPL wins in B2B cybersecurity.
1) Tighten targeting to buyer intent:
We rebuilt the campaign structure around high intent themes, not generic security buzzwords. The goal was to show ads only when someone was likely to be evaluating tools, not learning definitions.
Key actions:
• Split campaigns by intent level: evaluation terms vs awareness terms
• Reduced broad match usage and added tighter phrase and exact match coverage
• Built a strong negative keyword list and expanded it every week
• Excluded weak geos where sales rarely closed deals
• Added audience layers for business decision makers where possible
Examples of negative keyword themes we actively blocked:
• Jobs and salary searches
• Certification and course searches
• Free tools and cracked software searches
• Student, tutorial, and PDF type intent
2) Improve ad relevance and message clarity:
Cybersecurity buyers are skeptical. If the ad copy feels vague, they bounce or they fill forms with low intent.
We improved relevance by:
• Creating smaller ad groups with tighter keyword sets
• Writing ads that matched the exact pain point in the search
• Testing proof based copy like response time, outcomes, and integration support
• Aligning ad text with landing page sections so the message stayed consistent
3) Fix landing pages so more clicks became leads:
We did not need more clicks. We needed more conversions from the clicks we were already paying for.
Landing page improvements in June and July 2025 included:
• Clear above the fold statement in simple words
• A short “who this is for” section for faster self qualification
• A section explaining implementation steps and time to value
• Proof blocks: logos, short quotes, and security assurances
• Shorter forms with fewer required fields
• Better mobile layout and faster load times
We also added a second conversion path for visitors not ready for a demo:
• “Get the evaluation checklist” as a softer CTA
• Leads from that asset were nurtured and scored before sales outreach
4) Use SEO style content to support paid quality:
Even though this sprint focused on paid CPL, content still mattered. Buyers often clicked ads, then looked for proof before submitting.
We built supporting pages that answered common questions sales kept hearing:
• “How SOC teams reduce alert fatigue”
• “SIEM vs XDR in plain language”
• “What to ask in a cybersecurity vendor demo”
• “Implementation checklist for mid market security teams”
These pages improved two things fast:
• They gave paid visitors a reason to trust and stay longer
• They helped remarketing audiences become warmer over time
Month by month execution and results: the 90 day breakdown:
Below is the monthly view for June 2025, July 2025, and August 2025, plus the baseline month of May 2025. Each month shows what we shipped and what changed in CPL and lead volume.
June 2025: rebuild structure and stop waste:
June was about cleaning the account and removing expensive leaks. We did not chase scale yet. We focused on efficiency.
Work completed in June 2025:
• Rebuilt campaign structure by intent
• Added negative keyword list version one, then expanded weekly
• Paused weak ad groups and trimmed broad match exposure
• Built two new landing pages for highest intent services
• Fixed conversion tracking and aligned GA4, Ads, and HubSpot
• Created a simple lead quality score in HubSpot to report back to ads
June 2025 performance:
• Paid spend: $20,000
• Paid leads: 82
• CPL: $244
• Landing page conversion rate: 3.1%
• Sales accepted lead rate: 31%
What changed most in June 2025:
• We stopped paying for low intent searches
• Conversion rate improved because pages became clearer and forms became easier
• Leads included more context, which reduced sales back and forth
July 2025: scale what worked and improve conversion rate again:
Once waste was under control, July was about scaling only the best intent segments. This is where we pushed more volume without pushing CPL back up.
Work completed in July 2025:
• Expanded exact match coverage for top converting terms
• Added new ad copy tests focused on pain points and proof
• Built one competitor comparison landing page based on real search demand
• Improved page speed and tightened mobile layout further
• Added remarketing with a “demo checklist” offer for warm visitors
• Weekly search term reviews and negative keyword updates
July 2025 performance:
• Paid spend: $20,500
• Paid leads: 97
• CPL: $211
• Landing page conversion rate: 3.6%
• Sales accepted lead rate: 34%
What changed most in July 2025:
• More of the spend moved to keywords that already had proven conversion history
• Remarketing helped recover visitors who needed more trust before booking
• We saw fewer junk form fills because the message was more direct
August 2025: tighten lead quality signals and push CPL to the target:
August focused on polishing the system so it stayed efficient. We improved lead quality signals and removed the final pockets of expensive traffic.
Work completed in August 2025:
• Added offline conversion feedback into campaign optimization
• Built a “use case by role” landing page for IT directors and security managers
• Refined audience targeting to prioritize business and tech decision makers
• Added form field logic to reduce drop offs while capturing key details
• Continued weekly negative keyword cleanup and bid adjustments
• Updated the top pages with clearer proof blocks and better FAQs
August 2025 performance:
• Paid spend: $21,000
• Paid leads: 115
• CPL: $183
• Landing page conversion rate: 4.1%
• Sales accepted lead rate: 36%
What changed most in August 2025:
• We improved both conversion rate and lead quality at the same time
• Sales accepted more leads, which validated that CPL dropped for real reasons
• The campaign could scale because the structure was cleaner
Before vs after proof: May 2025 compared to August 2025:
This is the cleanest comparison because May 2025 was the baseline month, and August 2025 was the final month of the 90 day sprint.
CPL improvement:
• May 2025 CPL: $309
• August 2025 CPL: $183
• Change: 41% reduction in CPL
Lead volume improvement:
• May 2025 leads: 64
• August 2025 leads: 115
• Change: 79% more paid leads per month
Conversion rate improvement:
• May 2025 landing page conversion rate: 2.4%
• August 2025 landing page conversion rate: 4.1%
• Change: stronger pages turned the same clicks into more leads
Lead quality improvement:
• May 2025 sales accepted lead rate: 28%
• August 2025 sales accepted lead rate: 36%
This mattered because cheaper leads are not useful if sales rejects them. In this case, CPL dropped while lead quality improved.
What specifically made the CPL drop:
A CPL reduction like this usually comes from multiple small gains, not a single hack. Here is what created the biggest impact in this project.
Search term control reduced wasted spend:
Weekly search term reviews removed expensive traffic that never converted. In cybersecurity, a lot of searches look relevant but are actually learning intent.
We kept cutting waste by:
• Blocking education and job intent terms
• Tightening match types on high spend keywords
• Splitting evaluation terms into their own ad groups so ads stayed relevant
Better landing pages increased conversion rate:
The biggest lever in this sprint was conversion rate. Once the pages became clearer, more people converted at the same click cost.
The landing page changes that helped most:
• Clear steps: what happens after you book a demo
• Clear fit: who it is for and who it is not for
• Proof: short quotes and real outcomes in simple words
• Lower friction forms: fewer fields, better mobile experience
Better alignment between ads and pages improved quality score:
When the ad promise matched the page content, engagement improved. That often improves quality score, which helps reduce cost per click over time.
We improved alignment by:
• Writing ads that matched the exact keyword theme
• Adding page sections that directly answered what the ad mentioned
• Keeping message consistent from keyword to ad to headline to form
Lead scoring and offline feedback prevented “cheap but bad” leads:
Once sales feedback was included, we could stop optimizing for “any lead” and optimize for “good lead.”
This reduced hidden waste like:
• Leads that booked demos but never showed up
• Leads from companies too small to buy
• Leads outside the product fit
Tools used by Goforaeo:
We kept the tool stack simple and focused on tracking, conversion, and search control.
Analytics and tracking tools:
• Google Analytics 4
• Google Tag Manager
• HubSpot CRM tracking and lifecycle stages
• Looker Studio reporting dashboard
Paid media tools:
• Google Ads
• LinkedIn Ads (light remarketing support)
• Keyword planner and search term reports for weekly cleanup
Conversion and behavior tools:
• Heatmaps and session recordings (Microsoft Clarity or similar)
• Landing page A B testing workflow (simple CTA tests and form tests)
SEO and research tools used to support content:
• Google Search Console
• Ahrefs or Semrush for keyword intent research
• Screaming Frog for quick site checks and internal linking audits
What other B2B cybersecurity SaaS teams can copy:
If you want lower CPL quickly, focus on actions that reduce waste and improve conversion rate at the same time. These were the most repeatable lessons from this sprint.
Key takeaways:
• Define a lead properly with sales before optimizing
• Clean tracking first so results are believable
• Control search terms weekly, especially in technical niches
• Build landing pages that answer buyer questions in simple words
• Add proof and process details because security buyers need trust
• Use a softer conversion option for visitors not ready for a demo
• Push lead quality signals back into ad optimization, not just click data