Everything running across paid social, paid search, the AI assistants, the local profiles and the website. Last-30-day figures cover July 11 – August 9, 2026, compared month-on-month against the prior 30 days and year-on-year against the same window in 2025.
Everything spent across paid channels in the window, Meta and Google Ads together. Total spend is up 12.5% on last month and 21.7% on the same window last year, and it bought 92% more clicks than last month at a blended $1.17 a click, down from $1.99.
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total spend | $1,630.34 | ▲ 12.5% | $1,834.39 |
| Meta Ads | $474.20 | ▲ 40.1% | $664.19 |
| Google Ads | $1,156.14 | ▲ 1.2% | $1,170.20 |
| Clicks bought | 819 | ▲ 92.1% | 1,573 |
| Blended cost per click | $1.99 | ▼ 41.2% | $1.17 |
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total spend | $1,506.83 | ▲ 21.7% | $1,834.39 |
| Meta Ads | $348.15 | ▲ 90.8% | $664.19 |
| Google Ads | $1,158.68 | ▲ 1.0% | $1,170.20 |
| Clicks bought | 701 | ▲ 124.4% | 1,573 |
| Blended cost per click | $2.15 | ▼ 45.6% | $1.17 |
Google Ads has been held steady all year, within about $14 of last month and within $12 of the same window in 2025, so it is the Meta side that moved. Meta rose 40% on the month and 91% on the year as the video campaigns took over delivery, which has shifted the balance from roughly a quarter of the budget on social last summer to just over a third now.
The useful number across both channels is the blended cost of a click, because it says what the extra budget actually bought. That is $1.17 this period against $1.99 last month and $2.15 last year, so the account is buying almost twice the traffic of a year ago for about a fifth more money. The sections below break each channel down.
The month the videos moved from earning views to earning visits. Switching the New Videos 2026 campaigns to landing-page-view optimisation took the site from 246 visits to 952, more than doubled clicks and cut cost-per-click by more than a third, on roughly $190 more spend.
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $474.20 | ▲ 40.1% | $664.19 |
| Impressions | 61,116 | ▼ 13.0% | 53,158 |
| Reach | 28,390 | ▼ 34.1% | 18,719 |
| Clicks | 620 | ▲ 118.2% | 1,353 |
| CPC | $0.76 | ▼ 35.8% | $0.49 |
| Website visits | 246 | ▲ 287.0% | 952 |
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $348.15 | ▲ 90.8% | $664.19 |
| Impressions | 23,137 | ▲ 129.8% | 53,158 |
| Reach | 8,104 | ▲ 131.0% | 18,719 |
| Clicks | 519 | ▲ 160.7% | 1,353 |
| CPC | $0.67 | ▼ 26.8% | $0.49 |
| Website visits | 399 | ▲ 138.6% | 952 |
Last month the same videos ran as engagement campaigns, so Meta showed them to the people most likely to watch and react. This month they ran for landing page views, so Meta showed them to the people most likely to tap through and wait for the site to load. That single change is why clicks are up 118%, cost-per-click is down 36% and website visits are up 287%, while reach and reactions came down. The comparison against last year is the cleaner one: every measure is well ahead of July and August 2025, with 160% more clicks at a 27% lower cost-per-click.
The technician job ad also ran for nine days and brought in 288 clicks at $0.26 each, the cheapest traffic in the account, and has now been switched off at Scott’s request.
At the last meeting the three new videos were each given their own budget so none could be starved, and the agreement was to let Meta take over once there was enough data. That is exactly what happened: the even split ran Jul 15 – 27, then the Meta-optimised version ran Jul 27 – Aug 9 on a near-identical budget for a near-identical stretch. Two questions get answered at once, which video Meta backs and whether letting it choose is worth it.
| Phase | Budget | Visits | Cost / visit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Even split33% of budget | $62.76 | 81 | $0.775 |
| Meta-optimised5% of budget | $9.69 | 10 | $0.969 |
| Phase | Budget | Visits | Cost / visit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Even split33% of budget | $63.26 | 84 | $0.753 |
| Meta-optimised5% of budget | $10.86 | 11 | $0.987 |
| Phase | Budget | Visits | Cost / visit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Even split33% of budget | $63.43 | 83 | $0.764 |
| Meta-optimised90% of budget | $181.73 | 289 | $0.629 |
Given a free hand, Meta put 90% of the Whistler budget and 86% of the Squamish budget behind Video 4 and all but stopped the other two. That is the same video the last report singled out for holding attention, keeping 6.6% of viewers past 15 seconds against 2.6% for the shortest cut. Two independent ways of judging the creative, our own read of the retention curves and Meta’s own optimisation, landed on the same answer.
What makes it convincing is the price. Video 4 delivered visits at $0.629 once it had the budget, cheaper than any of the three managed under the even split, while the two videos Meta starved were the most expensive per visit at $0.97 and $0.99. It backed the right one and the cost per visit followed.
| Cost per website visit | $0.764 → $0.653 | −14.6% |
|---|---|---|
| Visits per 1,000 views | 18.6 → 23.5 | +26.6% |
| Cost per 1,000 views | $14.18 → $15.33 | +8.1% |
| Website visits | 248 → 310 | +25.0% |
| Cost per website visit | $0.869 → $0.788 | −9.4% |
|---|---|---|
| Visits per 1,000 views | 14.8 → 19.9 | +35.0% |
| Cost per 1,000 views | $12.82 → $15.68 | +22.3% |
| Website visits | 109 → 130 | +19.3% |
Letting Meta direct the budget bought visits 14.6% cheaper in Whistler and 9.4% cheaper in Squamish. The reason sits in the two lines beneath: cost per visit is simply the cost of being seen divided by how many of those views turn into a visit. Meta paid more per thousand views in both towns, up 8% in Whistler and 22% in Squamish, but it turned far more of them into visits, up 27% and 35%. It bought dearer attention from much better matched people, and won comfortably on the trade.
There is a second effect worth naming, because it explains why Squamish improved even though Video 4 had looked like the weakest performer there under the even split. Three separate ad sets each learn from a third of the data and bid against each other; one ad set learns from all of it. Consolidating is doing some of the work here alongside the choice of video, which is a good argument for keeping this structure rather than splitting the budget again.
One honest caveat: the two phases ran back to back rather than side by side, so the second phase benefits both from a fortnight of accumulated learning and from whatever the auction was doing that week. The gap is large and consistent across both towns, so the direction is not in doubt, but the exact percentages would tighten if the two ever ran concurrently.
A steady, more efficient month on essentially flat spend. Clicks rose 10.6% and cost-per-click fell 8.4%, and against the same window last year the account is buying 21% more clicks at a 17% lower cost-per-click for within $12 of the same budget.
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $1,156.14 | ▲ 1.2% | $1,170.20 |
| Impressions | 3,613 | ▲ 2.1% | 3,689 |
| Clicks | 199 | ▲ 10.6% | 220 |
| Average CPC | $5.81 | ▼ 8.4% | $5.32 |
| Metric | Previous | Change | Current |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $1,158.68 | ▲ 1.0% | $1,170.20 |
| Impressions | 3,416 | ▲ 8.0% | 3,689 |
| Clicks | 182 | ▲ 20.9% | 220 |
| Average CPC | $6.37 | ▼ 16.5% | $5.32 |
Google’s call button puts Sierra’s number straight on the ad and in the local listing. Over the window it was shown 909 times and tapped 43 times, both up on last month.
| Campaign | Spend | Impressions | Clicks | Avg CPC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistler · Window Cleaning | $284.14 | 469 | 33 | $8.61 |
| Local Services AdsSystem-generated | $135.61 | 471 | 70 | $1.94 |
| Squamish · Window Cleaning | $132.20 | 574 | 19 | $6.96 |
| Whistler · Pressure Washing | $122.58 | 251 | 17 | $7.21 |
| Whistler · Broader Reach | $112.90 | 592 | 20 | $5.65 |
| Squamish · Pressure Washing | $109.69 | 423 | 14 | $7.83 |
| Whistler · Snow Removal | $97.13 | 94 | 8 | $12.14 |
| International · All Services (Phrase) | $89.98 | 255 | 20 | $4.50 |
| Squamish · Broader Reach | $85.97 | 560 | 19 | $4.52 |
The Local Services listings are the standout on value again, bringing 70 clicks at $1.94, a third of the account’s clicks for a ninth of its spend, and they are where the Google Guaranteed badge shows. Whistler window cleaning remains the most competitive term at $8.61, though that is down from $12.83 last month on half again as many clicks.
Snow removal is the one to watch. It is running at $12.14 a click on only 94 impressions in the middle of summer, which is the auction being thin rather than expensive, and the seasonal enquiries arriving now say the demand is real. Worth deciding on the call how hard to lean into it from September.
More people now ask an assistant for a recommendation instead of scrolling results, so I ran every service Sierra offers as a plain search through ChatGPT and recorded where Sierra came in its list. These are live answers, pulled today.
| Search on ChatGPT | Sierra | Other companies named |
|---|---|---|
| window cleaning whistler | #1of 5 | Pure View · Alpine Shine · Shiny View · Luigi |
| pressure washing whistler | #1of 5 | Pure View · Wizard Services · Peak Pressure Washing · 50 North |
| roof cleaning whistler | #1of 5 | Peak Pressure Washing · Pure View · Shine 99 · Spark Cleanup |
| gutter cleaning whistler | #1of 5 | Pure View · Wizard Services · Alpine Shine · Shine 99 |
| soft washing whistler | #1of 4 | Pure View · Peak Pressure Washing · Wizard Services |
| snow removal whistler | #1of 3 | Whistler Snow Removal Ltd · 50 North |
| christmas light installation whistler | #1of 4 | Best Coast Christmas Lights · Pure View · one local landscaping company |
| high dusting whistler | #1of 3 | Pure View · Alpine Shine |
| bbq detailing whistler | #1of 2 | Barbex |
Sierra is the first company named on every service, and on each one ChatGPT goes further than listing it, saying outright that it would contact Sierra first. It is never named second or third. The reason it gives is the same each time: the largest review history in Whistler at a perfect rating, backed by a website it can read the services off. The 230 five-star reviews and the service pages are doing this work.
Worth knowing how the answer is built, because it decides what keeps this position. ChatGPT reads the Google map results first and then checks the leading company’s website to justify the pick. That is why it quotes the snow-removal page and surfaces the phone number and quote link on the snow search, and why it can describe the BBQ process step by step. The profiles win the shortlist, the website wins the recommendation.
Two of these are seasonal and already answered. On lights, ChatGPT told the searcher that “August is a good time to start enquiring for the 2026 Christmas season, before the prime November installation dates start filling up.” On snow it said to get a quote now rather than waiting for the first snowfall. The assistants are already sending people to book winter work, which is the same pattern the enquiries are showing.
All three profiles are still a perfect 5.0★, and the Whistler profile crossed 230 reviews this month, ten more than at the last meeting, every one of them replied to. That review base is the single biggest reason Sierra comes out on top in the AI answers above.
Whistler carries the weight of the activity, with 414 profile views and 67 interactions including 8 calls and 21 clicks to the site. Squamish and Snow Removal are smaller but both pull strong direction-request numbers for their size, 43 and 41, which is people navigating to a job rather than browsing. The Snow Removal profile is a useful asset heading into winter, and it is the profile ChatGPT names by title when asked about seasonal driveway work.
Twelve enquiries came through the website form in the four weeks since the last meeting, and the make-up of them is the interesting part. Five found Sierra on Google, four are existing customers coming back through the site, and three came by word of mouth. Nine are Whistler and three Squamish, and one is a commercial property manager in Squamish covering window cleaning, exterior surfaces and pressure washing.
Three seasonal snow contracts came in during July, two of them from homeowners leaving another contractor, one after eighteen years with the same company. Those are multi-winter relationships being decided now, months before the first snowfall, and they line up exactly with the snow searches climbing with the enquiries the snow profile is drawing.
The enquiries are also traceable all the way through. Two of them, a Whistler seasonal snow contract and the Squamish commercial building, appear in the team’s own estimate pipeline within days of arriving. A third submitted the form on 31 July and left a five-star review on 9 August, which is a complete run from search to enquiry to job done to public review inside nine days.
The seasonal enquiries are already arriving, three of them this month, and the assistants are telling people to get a snow quote now rather than wait. Building the snow-removal page out into a fuller service page, with the coverage area and how the seasonal contract works, is what keeps Sierra the answer as the season builds. Worth agreeing now so it is live well before the first snowfall.
Lights are already coming up. One enquiry through the website listed Christmas lights alongside window and roof work, and the team has an install to quote on a large tree that needs a man lift. The Google campaign for lights is built and sitting paused, so the decision is when to switch it on, and whether to strengthen the lights page at the same time. Installs get booked early and the slots are finite, so starting before the rush is usually what fills the calendar.
The even split did its job and told us what we needed to know about the three videos. Leaving Meta to direct the budget is buying visits more cheaply in both towns, so the recommendation is to let it continue rather than splitting the budget evenly again.
Scott raised a call that came through Local Services from someone he already knows. It is worth walking through together how that billing works and where the boundaries are, since Local Services is bringing in a third of the account’s clicks at $1.94 and is the cheapest source of enquiries we have, so it is worth being comfortable with how it charges.
More videos are being put together. When they land they go into the same structure, which now has a clear benchmark to beat in Video 4 at 63 cents a visit. The job photos the team has been posting are also usable for still creative alongside the video.
Every “New Customer” answer from the contact page, the pop-up, and the new quote builder now creates a Prospect in CustomerFactor automatically, no manual entry needed. The underlying connection has been live since mid-July; today it was extended to also cover the new quote builder and simplified to focus specifically on the new-customer answer. Right now it adds every one of those straight through without checking whether the person might already be a Customer or Prospect under a different email, so worth confirming on the call whether that is how you want it to keep working, or whether a duplicate check should come back in.
The new instant quote tool is live on the site now, embedded on the home page and also available as a pop-up from the “Get your quote” button. Right now it can only put a firm number on what the June pricing notes actually covered, so a good part of the service list still falls back to a custom quote rather than a price. Window cleaning is the clearest example: the only priced band is 10 to 20 windows, so anything outside that range, or interior only, routes to a custom quote instead of a number. We have put together a sheet listing what the tool can already price for each service and what is still missing. If you can fill in the gaps, we can build the tool out to cover more of the list.