Case Study: Cutting Return Rate for a Health-Vertical Lead Buyer

Case Study: Cutting Return Rate for a Health-Vertical Lead Buyer

A health-vertical lead buyer was returning a painful share of the leads they bought. The leads looked fine on paper — real names, real phone numbers — but too many came back as wrong-consent, duplicate, or out-of-criteria. Every return was wasted spend on both sides and a strained relationship with their sources.

No confidential figures here. This is the operational story.

The starting point

The buyer was scaling fast and accepting volume from several sources at once. Consent records were inconsistent: some leads carried clean TrustedForm or Jornaya certificates, others did not. Duplicates slipped through because the dedup window was loose. By the time bad leads were flagged and returned, the buyer had already paid for them and the source had already moved on.

What we changed

We reset the campaign around quality at intake, not cleanup after the fact.

The outcome

Return rate came down and stayed down as volume grew, because the leads that would have been returned never entered the pipeline. The buyer's team stopped spending hours flagging bad records, and the sources that survived the vetting got more volume — a cleaner incentive for everyone.

The campaign scaled only on the sources that held their return rate. Nothing was added on volume alone.

The takeaway

A high return rate is rarely the buyer's fault and rarely fixed by returns. It is fixed by checking consent before the lead posts, defining duplicate and return rules up front, and pausing weak sources inside the first test cap. Quality at intake is cheaper than cleanup.

This is also our standing approach to compliance — see how we handle it. Ready to test? Apply as an advertiser.

Want this run on your traffic?

Send your source, vertical, geos, and buyer rules. We will tell you if there is a fit before you spend.