Restaurant & bar · Kuşadası · 2025 season
An ad set’s concept changed more than its targeting did
We ran Google Ads, local SEO and social media consulting for Seçkin Saklıbahçe. The most instructive result came not from budget or targeting, but from the concept of a single ad set.
This page was rewritten in September 2026 from the account’s own export. Several figures published in the previous version were wrong; every correction is stated openly below.
Measured result
Q2–Q4 2025, whole account
- 1,091,470
- Impressions
- Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
- 26,958
- Clicks
- 5,277
- Call actions
- all from mobile
- ₺14.86
- Cost per action
- Search: ₺11.37
“Actions” here means call and message actions — taps on the phone number. Not bookings or covers. Every single action came from a mobile device; zero from desktop or tablet.
Source: Google Ads · Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
01 · The starting point
Invisible on everything except their own name
The site was technically weak and its search visibility stopped at the brand name: outside “saklıbahçe” they were not on page one for any commercial search. Competitors came first for food, venue and area queries. The first job was to move visibility beyond the brand name.
- 01Local SEO foundation and Google Business Profile optimisation
- 02Content and page-structure recommendations for non-brand commercial searches
- 03Technical review of site performance and the conversion path
- 04Social media content and engagement consulting
Google Business Profile visibility
13×
Following the local SEO and business profile work, the client reported a 13-fold increase in Google Business Profile visibility.
This figure comes from Google Business Profile data supplied by the client. We hold no export for it and it does not share a source with the Google Ads data on this page — which is why it sits under its own heading with its own attribution.
Source: Google Business Profile · client-supplied, we hold no export
02 · Ad economics
Two campaigns, one of which returned nothing
Two campaigns ran. The Search campaign produced 5,277 call actions. The Demand Gen campaign spent ₺18,418.95 and produced zero conversions — which is why the account-level cost per action is ₺14.86 while the Search campaign alone is ₺11.37.
We publish both. Showing only ₺11.37 would make a quarter of the spend invisible.
| Campaign | Type | Spend | Call actions | Cost per action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025_ao_performance_search_seckin_phonecalls | Search | ₺60,015.97 | 5,277 | ₺11.37 |
| 2025_ao_performance_demandgen_seckin_phonecallsZero conversions | Demand Gen | ₺18,418.95 | 0 | — |
Source: Google Ads · Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
Quarter-on-quarter improvement
Cost per action fell in every quarter the campaign ran: from ₺17.73 to ₺13.11, a 26% improvement. That came from learning which searches and which concept worked — not from spending more.
−26%
Cost per action, Q2 → Q4
| Quarter | Clicks | Impressions | Call actions | Cost per action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q2 2025 | 9,462 | 464,462 | 1,473 | ₺17.73 |
| Q3 2025 | 16,931 | 616,937 | 3,471 | ₺13.82 |
| Q4 2025 | 565 | 10,071 | 333 | ₺13.11 |
03 · The ad-set experiment
Same restaurant, three different stories
Three ad sets ran under the same budget discipline: food-led, events and local, and a romance concept. In restaurant advertising instinct says show the food. The data said something else.
| Ad set | Clicks | CTR | CPC | Call actions | Cost per action | Conv. rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Romance conceptWinnerromantik_konsept | 1,628 | 7.86% | ₺6.59 | 1,307 | ₺8.21 | 80.28% |
| Food-ledrestoran_yemek | 10,514 | 7.61% | ₺4.03 | 3,530 | ₺12.00 | 33.57% |
| Events & localsosyalmedya_etkinlik_lokal | 2,161 | 7.71% | ₺3.21 | 440 | ₺15.74 | 20.36% |
Source: Google Ads · Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
The romance concept led on every metric that mattered
- 01Conversion rate 80.28% — 2.4 times the food-led set.
- 02Cost per action ₺8.21 — 32% cheaper than the food set.
- 03Highest CTR of the three: 7.86%.
- 04And the highest cost per click: ₺6.59, 64% more than the food set.
That last point is the whole lesson. The romance concept cost more per click and still produced the cheapest action, because the people it brought already knew what they were looking for. An account that shut this ad set down on CPC alone would have shut down its winner.
- Conversion rate vs the food set
- 2.4×
- Cost per action
- −32%
- Cost per click — the winning set bought the most expensive clicks
- +64%
04 · Who, and when
Entirely mobile, entirely evening
Every call action came from a mobile device — not one from desktop or tablet. Demand concentrated between 18:00 and 21:00, peaking at 19:00. The age profile skews older than you might expect: 58.9% of impressions went to the over-45s.
| Device | Spend | Clicks | Call actions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mobile | ₺75,077.06 | 26,728 | 5,277 |
| Desktop | ₺3,185.73 | 142 | 0 |
| Tablet | ₺159.45 | 83 | 0 |
Source: Google Ads · Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
Age distribution
An audience deciding on a phone, shortly before dinner, mostly over 45. Those three facts together explain why the romance concept worked.
58.9% · 45+ | 18:00–21:00 · peak demand
06 · Rebrand advisory
We gave the recommendation; someone else built it
We reported that the site structure and brand presentation needed rebuilding, and shared a roadmap answering what should change, which pages to create and how the conversion path should work. The business acted on that advice roughly a year later — with another team doing the build.
What we corrected on this page
In the interest of transparency: four figures published in the previous version of this case study were wrong, and were corrected against the account export in September 2026.
| Previously published | Correction |
|---|---|
| “36,900+ customer interactions” | No such metric exists. This was the 36.89% conversion rate — a percentage published as a count. |
| “1.07M+ reach” | 1,091,470 is impressions, not reach. One person generates several impressions. |
| “₺11 cost per conversion” | That is the Search campaign alone. Account level is ₺14.86; we now give both. |
| “4 months” | Spend spans three quarters: Q2–Q4 2025. |
Source: Google Ads · Q2–Q4 2025 · campaigns paused
Frequently asked questions
- Which concept works better in restaurant advertising?
- On the Saklıbahçe account the romance ad set converted at 2.4 times the rate of the food-led set and came in 32% cheaper per action — despite costing 64% more per click. Showing the food is the default choice in restaurant advertising; it is not always the best one. You only learn that by running the concepts as separate ad sets.
- Should I pause an ad set with a high cost per click?
- Not on CPC alone. On this account the ad set buying the most expensive clicks produced the cheapest actions. Cost per action is the metric that decides; CPC is only an input to it.
- Do Demand Gen campaigns work for restaurants?
- Not on this account: the Demand Gen campaign spent ₺18,418.95 and produced zero conversions, while the Search campaign produced 5,277 call actions over the same period. Demand Gen can make sense for a brand buying reach, but it should not be the priority for a restaurant chasing calls and bookings.
- Why have the figures on this page changed?
- An earlier version of this case study carried figures that did not match the account export — most importantly “36,900+ customer interactions”, which was in fact a 36.89% conversion rate published as though it were a count. We rewrote the page from the account’s own data in September 2026. Correcting a wrong number is better than continuing to carry it.
Related pages
Are you testing concepts in your ad sets?
Running different stories against the same budget is the cheapest source of gain in most accounts. Let us talk.
05 · Social media consulting
Advisory on content and engagement
We did not run the social accounts. We worked with the venue’s own team on content direction, post construction and engagement practice — which content works and why, posting rhythm, and how to express the venue’s concept visually.
See the Instagram account