👋 Hey, Jon here!

This issue offers a deeper look into Google Ads performance among roofers, specifically examining the performance of branded and unbranded campaigns separately.

Branded campaigns target users searching for your company or brand name, typically to protect your own backyard if competitors are bidding on your name.

Unbranded campaigns target more general terms like ‘roofers near me’ in an attempt to capture demand from customers who need your services but aren’t yet searching for a specific brand.

In our HVAC/plumbing focused newsletter we found pretty large discrepancies in performance between the two types.

Looking at just a blended return on ad spend for Google Ads doesn’t tell the full story, and I go into detail below.

A note on this data:

This analysis covers 28 roofing contractors on the SearchLight platform from January 1 through June 12, 2026, using campaign-level Google Ads data. Total spend tracked across the period was $717,644.

Campaigns were classified as Brand or Non-Brand Search based on campaign naming conventions -- Brand campaigns identified by “brand” or “branded” in the campaign name; all other search campaigns classified as Non-Brand Search. PMAX campaigns were excluded due to small sample size (5 accounts, 1.1% of spend).

June data covers the first 12 days of the month only and is noted as such throughout.

PS - If you’re getting value from these articles, I would love for you to consider sharing this newsletter with a colleague and your network: RoofingData.Substack.com

And, if you’re interested in tracking this data for your own business, set up a time with us here!

With that, let’s get into the data!

How Roofing Contractors Are Splitting Their Google Ads Budget

The median roofing contractor in this sample put 33.9% of their Google Ads budget toward branded campaigns and 66.1% toward non-brand (unbranded) search.

The split across accounts is nearly even: 12 of 28 accounts allocate more than 50% to brand. 11 of 28 allocate less than 20% to brand.

While this is a smaller sample, we typically see HVAC/Plumbing companies put 10% or less of their Google Ads budget into Branded campaigns, but for roofing contractors, we’re seeing a higher allocation.

Full-Period Performance: Volume Metrics

Across all 28 accounts, January 1 through June 12, 2026:

Brand campaigns generated 67% of all unique leads on 33% of spend, and 75% of all closed revenue across the six-month window.

Just because branded campaigns converted 75% of all closed revenue does not mean those customers were existing or would’ve converted regardless of whether a paid ad was shown during their search.

This is useful information because if unbranded campaigns aren’t producing volume or ROAS, that budget may in fact be better spent on branded with some allocation to alternative marketing strategies (other channels included).

Full-Period Performance: Efficiency Metrics

Per-account medians (reduces impact of outliers):

A note on non-brand search CAC (customer acquisition cost): The aggregate CAC across all 28 accounts is $3,150, but we’ve used the median ($2,059) as the more representative benchmark for two reasons. First, several accounts in the sample show $0 paying customers from non-brand search despite meaningful spend -- not because the channel isn’t working, but because roofing jobs sold in recent months haven’t yet closed and collected in the platform. Second, one account with $70K in non-brand search spend and only 2 paying customers recorded is pulling the aggregate up significantly. The median across the 17 accounts with at least one paying customer ($2,059) is the more useful calibration point.

Roofing CACs on Google Ads are higher than what we’ve seen in HVAC/Plumbing - depending on your average tickets, the investment can be worth it, but it’s even more costly if high-intent customers fall through the cracks during your sales funnel or if you aren’t watching unbranded campaign performance to make sure they’re giving you at-bats.

Google Ads can get expensive (and unprofitable) quickly without those checks in place as suggested by this data.

Monthly Trend: Spend Allocation

Brand allocation was at its lowest in January and February (13-16%), but climbed as peak season arrived in March and April, dipped in May as non-brand search spend hit its highest point of the year ($4,723 avg per contractor), and is back up to 41.4% through the first 12 days of June -- the highest point in the dataset.

Monthly Trend: Efficiency

Brand CPL is stable across the season -- staying in a $42-$73 range across all six periods. Non-brand search swings from $182 to $315 and is more expensive than brand in every single month.

Brand generates significantly more leads per contractor per dollar. In March, brand produced an average of 47 leads per contractor on $1,966 in avg spend. Non-brand search produced 16 leads per contractor on $3,555.

If you are getting leads from non-brand on Google Ads, make sure they’re converting by checking book rate, match rate, paying customer rate and nurturing those customers throughout the sales process because they are expensive!

In January, non-brand search CAC was $7,216 -- more than 16x the brand CAC of $446. In February, non-brand search CAC was $4,555 vs. $412 for brand. Roofing contractors running heavy non-brand search in winter are paying a steep premium based on this data.

June (through the 12th) is showing early signs of improved efficiency across both campaign types. Non-brand search CAC is at its lowest point in the dataset at $1,851, while brand CAC ($335) is tracking in line with April and May.

What to Take From This

This analysis is descriptive, not prescriptive: the right brand vs. non-brand allocation depends on your market, your brand awareness, your growth goals, and your agency’s strategy.

But the benchmarks above give you a calibration point.

A few questions worth asking against your own numbers:

How does your brand CPL compare to the $75 median? Significantly higher suggests either campaign structure issues or lower brand awareness in your market.

How does your non-brand search CAC compare to the $2,059 median? Significantly higher suggests targeting, landing page, or lead handling issues.

What percentage of your Google Ads budget is going to brand? The median across this sample is 33.9%.

Are you tracking leads per contractor by campaign type? The average contractor in this sample generated 148 unique leads from $8,418 in brand spend YTD -- and 72 unique leads from $17,212 in non-brand search spend. Volume per dollar is a useful gut check alongside CPL.

The data in this artic,e covers 28 roofing contractors on the SearchLight platform, January 1-June 12, 2026. All accounts anonymized. Campaign classification based on naming conventions. PMAX campaigns excluded due to minimal volume. ROAS figures reflect closed revenue; revenue potential ROAS includes pipeline not yet collected.

Jon Torrey Founder, Data-Driven Roofing Head of Marketing, SearchLight

👋 Hey, Jon here!

The second edition of our Roofing-focused newsletter analyzes which channels within Google properties (paid search, LSA, GBP, Google Organic) drive the most revenue for roofers.

This analysis covers 31 roofing contractors on the SearchLight platform from January through May 2026, across four Google channels: Google Ads, Google Local Service Ads, Google Business Profile, and Google Organic.

Total closed revenue tracked in this sample was $8.4M, against $65M in total revenue pipeline -- a reminder that the majority of roofing pipeline is still working through long sales cycles at any given point in time.

PS - being that this is a brand new industry benchmark newsletter, I’d greatly appreciate it if you could share with your colleagues, friends and vendors in roofing :)

With that, let’s dive in!

55% of Roofing Closed Revenue Came From Channels You're Not Paying Much For

Here’s the channel breakdown for closed revenue YTD across the 31-business sample:

Google Business Profile generated 44.3% of all closed roofing revenue in this sample -- more than Google Ads and LSA combined -- while accounting for just 7.7% of total spend.

Note: We calculate the spend basis for organic channels using vendor fees. If you’re paying $3,000 per month for SEO services, that would be your cost basis. It’s more directional than it is perfect because organic is NOT on a cost-per-click or cost-per-lead basis like paid channels, but it is still useful because you are typically spending money on services to help you optimize organic, and this enables us to produce benchmarks like ROAS, CPL, etc.

Google Organic added another 11.1% of closed revenue at 1.7% of spend.

Combined, GBP and organic drove 55.4% of closed revenue on 9.4% of spend.

Paid channels -- Google Ads and LSA -- drove the remaining 44.6% of closed revenue on 90.6% of spend.

To be clear: this doesn’t mean you should stop running paid ads. Paid channels drive incremental demand and are controllable in a way that organic isn’t.

But it does mean that roofing contractors who aren’t actively managing their Google Business Profile are leaving their single largest revenue channel unoptimized.

Google Business Profile: $7 CPL, $2,683 Average Ticket, 35x Closed ROAS

The GBP numbers are striking on their own:

• CPL: $7.01

• CAC: $76.68

• Average ticket: $2,682

• Closed ROAS: 35.0x

• ROAS Pipeline: 233.3x

• Per-business closed revenue: $123,942 YTD

These leads aren’t free, but they’re as close to free as paid acquisition gets after you invest in your brand.

The 35x closed ROAS is the highest of any channel in the sample by a wide margin, but the cost basis is low, so volume matters just as much. As noted above, the per-business closed revenue generated from GBP was over six figures.

GBP book rate (22.2%) is lower than paid channels, which makes sense -- GBP leads include a broader mix of intent levels, from someone researching a future project to someone who needs a roof replaced this week or someone calling in for an existing appointment.

But when they do convert, the average ticket ($2,683) is the highest of any channel in the sample.

Google LSA: More Leads Than Google Ads at a Lower Cost

Across the paid channels, LSA outperforms Google Ads on volume and cost efficiency:

LSA generates leads at $80 vs. $127 for Google Ads -- a 37% lower CPL -- and converts them at a slightly higher book rate. The CAC difference is significant: $619 on LSA vs. $957 on Google Ads:

Google Ads has one meaningful advantage: a higher average ticket ($2,611 vs. $2,086).

Neither channel is better in absolute terms based on this data.

The CACs are very high (as we’ve seen in other verticals) so it’s critical you keep a close eye on your pipeline generated from Google Ads to win as many of those opportunities as possible.

The Pipeline Challenge Is Consistent Across All Paid Channels

One number that holds across Google Ads and LSA: the share of revenue still sitting in unsold estimates.

• Google Ads: 66.0% of revenue potential in unsold estimates

• Google LSA: 71.2% of revenue potential in unsold estimates

• Google Organic: 71.0% of revenue potential in unsold estimates

• Google Business Profile: 63.8% of revenue potential in unsold estimates

Regardless of channel, roughly two-thirds of roofing revenue opportunity is still in the pipeline as of May 2026.

We know roofing has a long sales cycle, but I wanted to put some benchmark numbers in front of you to track against your own business so you at least have a baseline metric.

The Takeaway: Roofing Revenue Is a Four-Channel Story

If you’re measuring your marketing performance by Google Ads CPL alone, you’re looking at roughly 23% of your closed revenue picture.

The full picture across this sample:

• GBP is your highest-volume, highest-ROAS channel. If you’re not actively managing reviews, photos, and local signals, you’re underinvesting in your best channel.

• LSA is your most cost-efficient paid channel. Lower CPL, lower CAC, strong lead volume, and a ROAS potential story that holds up over a longer time window.

• Google Ads drives higher-ticket jobs at higher acquisition cost. Worth running alongside LSA, not instead of it.

• Organic is small but efficient. 11% of revenue at under 2% of spend. The compounding nature of SEO makes this worth building over time even if it moves slowly.

The contractors in this sample spending 90% of their marketing budget on channels that drive 44% of their revenue have an optimization opportunity sitting right in front of them.

Book a demo with us to get this data for your own business! - We have a detailed onboarding process to ensure accurate data for your business to help you make the best marketing decisions that protect your investment!

Data covers 31 roofing contractors on the SearchLight platform, January--May 2026. Channel attribution uses a customer identity graph that matches leads to paying customers across CRM, ad platform, and call tracking data.

Jon Torrey Founder, Data-Driven Roofing Head of Marketing, SearchLight

👋 Hey, Jon here!

Welcome Roofing Process Conference Partners!

Quick background: I’ve been publishing benchmark data for HVAC and plumbing contractors for a few years now through The Data-Driven Trades, which has grown to 5,400+ subscribers. This is the roofing version.

The premise is simple: roofing contractors deserve the same quality of benchmark data that other trades have access to. What does a lead actually cost? What does it cost to acquire a paying customer? And how much revenue is sitting in your pipeline right now that hasn’t converted yet? Those are the questions this newsletter exists to answer.

Let’s start with Google Local Service Ads.

A note on this data and methodology:

This is an early look. The roofing dataset on the SearchLight platform is growing, and this first issue reflects 23 roofing contractors running Google LSA in May 2026.

Total LSA spend across the sample was $165,905, and the average spend per business was $7,213.

Because roofing jobs have longer sales cycles, a few sample accounts that are newer to the SearchLight platform don’t yet have the historical leads that are later recognized as revenue, so I’m splitting the sample.

For volume and cost metrics (CPL, book rate, CAC), I use the full 23-account sample.

For unit economics (average ticket, ROAS, pipeline), I use the 9 standalone roofing businesses where closed revenue data is more complete. I’ll note which sample I’m drawing from as we go.

23 accounts are still a directional sample, and I’ll be transparent about that throughout.

It Cost $83.12 per Unique Lead from Google LSAs in May

Across the 23-business sample, GLSA generated 1,996 unique leads from 2,493 total conversions, at a cost per unique lead of $83.12.

Roughly 20% of raw conversions were duplicates -- the same caller touching the business more than once. Unique leads are what matter for benchmarking; raw conversion volume overstates it.

On a per-business basis, the sample averaged 87 unique leads per business in May.

How does $83 compare? Across all trades on the SearchLight platform in May, the average GLSA CPL was $63.29. Roofing running higher isn’t surprising.

Roofing is a higher-ticket, lower-frequency service, and Google’s LSA algorithm prices leads accordingly. You’re paying more per lead, but as you’ll see below, you’re also collecting significantly more per job.

Google LSA Book Rate Was 37.7% for Roofing

Of the 1,996 unique leads, 752 booked an appointment: a raw book rate of 37.7%.

Raw means no leads were filtered out, even if they weren’t bookable. If you paid for 100 leads from GLSA in May, roughly 38 of them scheduled an appointment.

For context, the overall home services book rate on GLSA in May was 40.9%.

Roofing running a few points lower is consistent with the nature of the trade -- more price shopping, more multi-quote situations, and storm-driven leads that don’t always convert on first contact.

It Cost $568 to Acquire a Paying Roofing Customer from Google LSAs

Of the 1,996 unique leads, 292 became paying customers -- a paying customer rate of 14.6% -- at a cost per acquisition of $568.17.

That CAC number needs context to mean anything. The average ticket data provides that context.

The Average Roofing Job Ticket Was $4,081–$4,663

Unit economics from 9 standalone roofing businesses with complete closed revenue data.

Across the 9-account subset, the average ticket came in at $4,662 in aggregate, with a per-account mean of $4,196 and a median of $4,081.

The fact that mean and median are close together is a good sign -- it tells you the ticket distribution across these businesses is reasonably consistent and not being pulled by one or two outliers. Whether you use the aggregate figure or the median, you’re looking at a roofing job value in the $4,000–$4,700 range from GLSA-sourced customers.

Compare that to the overall LSA average ticket of $2,177 across all home services trades in May.

Roofing pays more to acquire a customer than almost any trade, but the job value justifies it by a wide margin.

The Real Story: 33.2x ROAS Pipeline vs. 6.5x Closed ROAS

Pipeline data from 9 standalone roofing businesses.

This is where roofing gets interesting -- and where a single metric tells an incomplete story.

On closed revenue alone, GLSA generated a 6.5x return on ad spend in May. That’s $261,106 in closed revenue on $39,923 in spend across the 9-account subset.

But closed ROAS dramatically understates what GLSA actually generated for roofing contractors this month.

Here’s the full pipeline picture:

$1.3M in total revenue opportunity from $40K in spend represents the total revenue pipeline generated by GLSA.

Only 19.7% of that pipeline has closed and collected as of the end of May. The rest is either sitting in unsold estimates -- a job was quoted but not yet signed -- or sold jobs not yet completed and collected.

This is the roofing sales cycle problem made visible. A job quoted in May might not close until June or July. A storm-damage job may be waiting on an insurance adjuster. Closed ROAS in a monthly snapshot will always understate the true return for a trade with a longer conversion window.

For context, across all trades on the SearchLight platform in May, 46.6% of GLSA revenue potential was in unsold estimates. For roofing in this sample, it’s 65.8% -- meaningfully higher, and exactly what you’d expect from a trade where jobs take longer to sell and collect.

On a per-business basis, the average roofing contractor in the 9-account subset had $147,332 in total revenue pipeline from GLSA in May, against $29,012 in closed revenue. That gap is either future revenue or leakage, depending on how well the follow-up process is working.

Please share this newsletter :)

This is the first article in our roofing-specific newsletter, and I need you to help spread the word so we can put quality data in the hands of operators who want additional context as they make marketing and operational decisions.

Until next time . . .

Jon Torrey Founder, Data-Driven Roofing Head of Marketing, SearchLight