Are overlapping Google LSA service areas hurting performance?
Back in March, I kicked off a test to answer a simple question: Are overlapping Google LSA service areas hurting performance?
The idea was that if two profiles are targeting a similar area, they might compete with each other. So I ran a test across March, April, and May to see what would happen if we removed the overlaps.
Here’s how it played out.
March: The Baseline Month
In March, multiple LSA profiles shared overlapping service areas. We let it ride to get our baseline.
- Spend: $14,319.94
- Charged Leads: 331
- Cost per Lead (CPL): ~$43.26
Top performers:
- Branch 1: 144 leads
- Branch 2: 84 leads
- Branch 3: 36 leads
Even with some internal competition, lead volume was strong.
April: Overlaps Removed
This is where things got interesting. In April, I completely removed all overlaps — each service area was unique to one profile.
- Spend: $11,542.91 (down 19%)
- Leads: 238 (down 28%)
- CPL: ~$48.49 (up 12%)
Every profile took a hit.
- Branch 2: 24 leads (down 71%)
- Branch 3: 30 leads (down 17%)
- Branch 1: 105 leads (down 27%)
Restricting service areas didn’t improve our position, it just hurt every number.
May: Overlaps Reintroduced
In May, I brought overlaps back.
- Spend: $18,214.52 (up 58%)
- Leads: 341 (up 43%)
- CPL: ~$53.40 (up 10% from April, up 24% from March)
Big gains:
- Branch 2: 94 leads (up 292% from April)
- Branch 3: 48 leads (up 60%)
- Branch 1: 116 leads (up 11%)
What This Tells Us
Removing overlaps didn’t help. It actually slowed everything down with fewer leads, higher CPL, and just poor performance.
I'll be sticking with overlaps (that the LSA platform suggested) moving forward.
