.svg)
.png)
.png?width=770&height=434&name=Real%20Estate%20Lead%20Cost%20Report%20for%20Buyers%20on%20Google%20Q3%202022(600%20%C3%97%20350%20px).png)
The cost for buyer leads on Google Ads in CINC's portfolio of real estate team and agent clients increased again during the third quarter, due to the continued slowdown in the real estate market.
Fewer people are searching online for homes, which drives down the overall quantity of leads.
Overall spend levels across Google for real estate buyer leads has not decreased as much as the drop in traffic. Thus, this is creating a temporary supply and demand challenge that is still working itself out.
Despite the overall increase in lead price, many markets still have low CPLs (cost per lead prices) and some markets even had year-over-year decreases in cost per lead.
We expect that the cost per lead will continue to climb during the fourth quarter.
Typically, lead prices increase during the fourth quarter due to seasonality of less people searching online for homes compared to busier spring and summer months.
But lead prices should fall significantly during the first quarter. How much they decrease will be largely based on the overall health of the real estate market.
CINC is the leader in online real estate lead generation with more than 50,000 clients. This behind-the-scenes lead cost data is what we were seeing for our portfolio of real estate team and agent clients during Q3 2022. The CINC client marketing team manages almost $30 million in search and social advertising spend annually for real estate teams and agents across the United States and Canada. If you want to see how CINC can help you find more higher quality hyperlocal real estate leads on Google, request a demo here.
Lowest Real Estate Lead Cost Markets for Buyers on Google
Yakima (Washington), Elmira (New York) and McAllen (Texas) had the lowest CPLs of any market. Yakima had a super low 42 cents per lead.
New York was well-represented with 3 cities in the Top 10 lowest cost per lead markets in the US.
|
Rank |
Market |
CPL |
|
1 |
Yakima, WA |
$ 0.42 |
|
2 |
Elmira, NY |
$ 1.44 |
|
3 |
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX |
$ 1.65 |
|
4 |
Pittsfield, MA |
$ 1.71 |
|
5 |
Bangor, ME |
$ 1.72 |
|
6 |
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY |
$ 1.76 |
|
7 |
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL |
$ 1.84 |
|
8 |
Bismarck, ND |
$ 1.93 |
|
9 |
Watertown-Fort Drum, NY |
$ 1.99 |
|
10 |
Lafayette, LA |
$ 2.33 |
Biggest Markets with Lowest Real Estate Lead Costs for Buyers on Google
Detroit and St. Louis both saw their lead prices fall year over year. St. Louis is the least expensive market for leads, followed by Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and Baltimore, all of which have lead prices less than $5.
Seattle and San Francisco have the most expensive lead prices at more than $9 per lead.
|
Market Rank |
Market |
Cost Per Lead (CPL) |
|
1 |
St. Louis, MO-IL |
$ 3.58 |
|
2 |
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI |
$ 4.49 |
|
3 |
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX |
$ 4.54 |
|
4 |
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD |
$ 4.79 |
|
5 |
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD |
$ 4.88 |
|
6 |
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA |
$ 5.07 |
|
7 |
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH |
$ 5.25 |
|
8 |
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI |
$ 5.47 |
|
9 |
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL |
$ 5.49 |
|
10 |
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA |
$ 5.61 |
Biggest Real Estate Lead Cost Declines for Buyers on Google for Top 100 Markets
Markets with four of the six largest CPL declines were located in either Texas or Louisiana.
| Market Rank | Market | Cost Per Lead (CPL) | % Change Year-Over-Year |
| 1 | Baton Rouge, LA | $2.88 | -46.8% |
| 2 | Wichita, KS | $3.32 | -36.9% |
| 3 | El Paso, TX | $2.33 | -28.7% |
| 4 | McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX | $1.65 | -20.7% |
| 5 | Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN | $4.57 | -16.7% |
| 6 | New Orleans-Metairie, LA | $3.40 | -16.0% |
| 7 | St. Louis, MO-IL | $3.58 | -14.5% |
| 8 | Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY | $1.76 | -13.5% |
| 9 | Columbia, SC | $3.84 | -13.3% |
| 10 | Madison, WI | $5.39 | -5.7% |
Biggest Real Estate Lead Cost Increases for Buyers on Google for Top 100 Markets
Markets with seven of the ten largest CPL increases were located in either Florida, Ohio, or Connecticut.
Even though Hurricane Ian did not hit until the end of Q3, it did create some oddities in some of the Florida markets. The impact is something we are continuing to keep an eye on in Q4.
| Market Rank | Market | Cost Per Lead (CPL) | % Change Year-Over-Year |
| 1 | Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville, FL | $5.77 | 104.2% |
| 2 | Austin-Round Rock, TX | $7.56 | 65.0% |
| 3 | Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL | $7.61 | 52.2% |
| 4 | Raleigh, NC | $6.14 | 50.0% |
| 5 | Toledo, OH | $5.51 | 46.7% |
| 6 | North Port-Sarasota-Bradenton, FL | $6.65 | 44.8% |
| 7 | Oklahoma City, OK | $4.59 | 42.7% |
| 8 | Worcester, MA-CT | $7.33 | 39.3% |
| 9 | Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN | $4.38 | 38.3% |
| 10 | New Haven-Milford, CT | $3.60 | 38.1% |
Real Estate Lead Cost for Buyers on Google for Top 100 Markets
|
Rank |
Market |
Cost Per Lead (CPL) |
% Change Year-Over-Year |
|
1 |
New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA |
$ 4.48 |
25% |
|
2 |
$ 7.23 |
12% |
|
|
3 |
Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI |
$ 4.18 |
7% |
|
4 |
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX |
$ 4.75 |
36% |
|
5 |
Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX |
$ 4.08 |
11% |
|
6 |
Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD |
$ 4.71 |
2% |
|
7 |
Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV |
$ 6.81 |
6% |
|
8 |
$ 5.07 |
24% |
|
|
9 |
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA |
$ 4.09 |
24% |
|
10 |
Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH |
$ 4.59 |
14% |
|
11 |
$ 9.65 |
19% |
|
|
12 |
$ 6.88 |
19% |
|
|
13 |
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ |
$ 7.79 |
25% |
|
14 |
Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI |
$ 5.78 |
-5% |
|
15 |
Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA |
$ 9.05 |
17% |
|
16 |
Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI |
$ 6.30 |
5% |
|
17 |
$ 7.88 |
7% |
|
|
18 |
$ 4.07 |
35% |
|
|
19 |
St. Louis, MO-IL |
$ 4.19 |
-15% |
|
20 |
Baltimore-Columbia-Towson, MD |
$ 4.77 |
2% |
|
21 |
Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO |
$ 7.79 |
11% |
|
22 |
Pittsburgh, PA |
$ 3.92 |
20% |
|
23 |
Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC |
$ 4.10 |
24% |
|
24 |
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA |
$ 7.37 |
5% |
|
25 |
San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX |
$ 3.94 |
19% |
|
26 |
$ 4.44 |
29% |
|
|
27 |
$ 7.37 |
18% |
|
|
28 |
Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN |
$ 3.16 |
38% |
|
29 |
Cleveland-Elyria, OH |
$ 4.98 |
14% |
|
30 |
Kansas City, MO-KS |
$ 4.31 |
16% |
|
31 |
Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV |
$ 7.66 |
17% |
|
32 |
Columbus, OH |
$ 4.37 |
5% |
|
33 |
Indianapolis-Carmel-Anderson, IN |
$ 5.49 |
-17% |
|
34 |
$ 9.73 |
14% |
|
|
35 |
Austin-Round Rock, TX |
$ 4.58 |
65% |
|
36 |
Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN |
$ 5.21 |
36% |
|
37 |
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC |
$ 5.59 |
27% |
|
38 |
Providence-Warwick, RI-MA |
$ 4.27 |
25% |
|
39 |
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI |
$ 3.78 |
22% |
|
40 |
$ 4.37 |
31% |
|
|
41 |
Memphis, TN-MS-AR |
$ 3.59 |
9% |
|
42 |
Oklahoma City, OK |
$ 3.22 |
43% |
|
43 |
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN |
$ 4.15 |
28% |
|
44 |
Richmond, VA |
$ 4.69 |
6% |
|
45 |
New Orleans-Metairie, LA |
$ 4.05 |
-16% |
|
46 |
Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT |
$ 3.64 |
7% |
|
47 |
Raleigh, NC |
$ 4.10 |
50% |
|
48 |
Birmingham-Hoover, AL |
$ 2.98 |
11% |
|
49 |
Buffalo-Cheektowaga-Niagara Falls, NY |
$ 2.04 |
-13% |
|
50 |
Salt Lake City, UT |
$ 9.08 |
18% |
|
Rank |
Market |
Cost Per Lead (CPL) |
% Change Year-Over-Year |
|
51 |
Rochester, NY |
$ 2.60 |
13% |
|
52 |
Grand Rapids-Wyoming, MI |
$ 4.65 |
21% |
|
53 |
Tucson, AZ |
$ 6.45 |
33% |
|
54 |
Urban Honolulu, HI |
$ 4.94 |
14% |
|
55 |
Tulsa, OK |
$ 3.75 |
-2% |
|
56 |
$ 4.32 |
11% |
|
|
57 |
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT |
$ 3.69 |
34% |
|
58 |
Worcester, MA-CT |
$ 5.27 |
39% |
|
59 |
Albuquerque, NM |
$ 5.30 |
37% |
|
60 |
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA |
$ 3.49 |
14% |
|
61 |
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY |
$ 2.91 |
10% |
|
62 |
New Haven-Milford, CT |
$ 2.60 |
38% |
|
63 |
$ 4.81 |
23% |
|
|
64 |
Knoxville, TN |
$ 3.53 |
34% |
|
65 |
Greenville-Anderson-Mauldin, SC |
$ 4.28 |
-4% |
|
66 |
$ 5.70 |
11% |
|
|
67 |
El Paso, TX |
$ 3.27 |
-29% |
|
68 |
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ |
$ 4.27 |
8% |
|
69 |
Baton Rouge, LA |
$ 5.42 |
-47% |
|
70 |
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX |
$ 2.08 |
-21% |
|
71 |
Dayton, OH |
$ 3.98 |
3% |
|
72 |
Columbia, SC |
$ 4.43 |
-13% |
|
73 |
Greensboro-High Point, NC |
$ 3.35 |
35% |
|
74 |
$ 4.59 |
45% |
|
|
75 |
Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway, AR |
$ 2.81 |
17% |
|
76 |
$ 7.97 |
19% |
|
|
77 |
Akron, OH |
$ 4.92 |
27% |
|
78 |
Charleston-North Charleston, SC |
$ 7.67 |
17% |
|
79 |
Colorado Springs, CO |
$ 8.84 |
5% |
|
80 |
Syracuse, NY |
$ 2.61 |
31% |
|
81 |
Winston-Salem, NC |
$ 3.32 |
13% |
|
82 |
$ 5.00 |
52% |
|
|
83 |
Boise City, ID |
$ 8.53 |
13% |
|
84 |
Wichita, KS |
$ 5.26 |
-37% |
|
85 |
Springfield, MA |
NA |
NA |
|
86 |
Madison, WI |
$ 5.71 |
-6% |
|
87 |
$ 3.03 |
15% |
|
|
88 |
Ogden-Clearfield, UT |
$ 7.69 |
-4% |
|
89 |
Toledo, OH |
$ 3.76 |
47% |
|
90 |
$ 4.77 |
28% |
|
|
91 |
Des Moines-West Des Moines, IA |
$ 5.93 |
29% |
|
92 |
Jackson, MS |
$ 2.43 |
17% |
|
93 |
Augusta-Richmond County, GA-SC |
$ 2.86 |
35% |
|
94 |
Scranton–Wilkes-Barre–Hazleton, PA |
NA |
NA |
|
95 |
Youngstown-Warren-Boardman, OH-PA |
$ 2.47 |
NA |
|
96 |
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA |
$ 5.19 |
12% |
|
97 |
Provo-Orem, UT |
$ 8.44 |
22% |
|
98 |
$ 2.82 |
104% |
|
|
99 |
Chattanooga, TN-GA |
$ 3.95 |
12% |
|
100 |
Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA |
$ 8.19 |
27% |
Additional Google Real Estate Lead Gen Resources from CINC:
With buyer cost per lead up on Google in Q3, it is more important than ever to be more efficient paying for leads on Google. Try our free local Google real estate targeting tool here to find hidden pockets of more cost effective hyper-local leads near you.
.png?width=2240&height=800&name=Secret%20Submarket%20Finder%20Tool%20(1).png)
Watch our recent on-demand real estate lead gen webinar here where we discuss new trends for real estate teams and agents on Google Ads, including a deep dive on Google Local Service Ads (LSA's) for realtors.
Here are links to past historic Buyer Cost Per Lead Reports for Q2 2022, Q1 2022, Q4 2021, Q3 2021, Q2 2021, Q1 2021, Q4 2020, Q3 2020, Q2 2020, Q1 2020.