I have been seeing a lot of posts lately where people talk about CPC like it is either magic or a total waste, especially when it comes to insurance advertising. Honestly, I was confused too. Insurance is not exactly an impulse buy, so I kept wondering if paying per click even makes sense for something that usually needs trust and time.
The biggest pain point for me was budget burn. Early on, clicks were coming in, but leads were either low quality or people just browsing. It felt like I was paying for curiosity instead of real intent. A few others in my circle had the same issue and were close to giving up on CPC altogether, saying insurance works better with long term branding or referrals.
Instead of quitting, I decided to slow things down and test smaller changes. I stopped going broad and focused on very specific insurance topics. Instead of generic terms, I tried more detailed queries that someone serious would search. That alone made a difference. Fewer clicks, but the people landing on the page actually stayed and read.
Another thing I noticed was that the landing page matters way more than I expected. When the page was too salesy, people bounced. When it was more informative and calm, explaining coverage and common doubts, engagement went up. It felt less like an ad and more like help, which suits insurance better in my opinion.
CPC started making sense once I treated it as a learning tool, not a quick win. Watching which keywords brought real conversations instead of just traffic helped me refine things week by week. It is slower, but it feels more stable.
If you are exploring this space, it also helps to read how others structure their insurance advertising and what formats they use. I found this breakdown on insurance advertising useful because it explains different approaches without pushing anything too hard. It gave me ideas on targeting and ad formats that I had not thought about before.
So yes, CPC can work for insurance advertising, but only if expectations are realistic. It is not about volume. It is about intent, patience, and small adjustments. If you are burning money fast, that usually means something upstream needs fixing, not that CPC itself is broken.
The biggest pain point for me was budget burn. Early on, clicks were coming in, but leads were either low quality or people just browsing. It felt like I was paying for curiosity instead of real intent. A few others in my circle had the same issue and were close to giving up on CPC altogether, saying insurance works better with long term branding or referrals.
Instead of quitting, I decided to slow things down and test smaller changes. I stopped going broad and focused on very specific insurance topics. Instead of generic terms, I tried more detailed queries that someone serious would search. That alone made a difference. Fewer clicks, but the people landing on the page actually stayed and read.
Another thing I noticed was that the landing page matters way more than I expected. When the page was too salesy, people bounced. When it was more informative and calm, explaining coverage and common doubts, engagement went up. It felt less like an ad and more like help, which suits insurance better in my opinion.
CPC started making sense once I treated it as a learning tool, not a quick win. Watching which keywords brought real conversations instead of just traffic helped me refine things week by week. It is slower, but it feels more stable.
If you are exploring this space, it also helps to read how others structure their insurance advertising and what formats they use. I found this breakdown on insurance advertising useful because it explains different approaches without pushing anything too hard. It gave me ideas on targeting and ad formats that I had not thought about before.
So yes, CPC can work for insurance advertising, but only if expectations are realistic. It is not about volume. It is about intent, patience, and small adjustments. If you are burning money fast, that usually means something upstream needs fixing, not that CPC itself is broken.