Buyer signups up 3.1×, at about a third the cost.
HLRBO runs a two-sided rental marketplace, property owners on one side and renters on the other. We found the channels that actually fed it, and made the unit economics work.
Why it mattersMarketplaces stall when a user costs more than they're worth. We grew buyer signups 3.1× while cutting cost per signup to about a third, so liquidity could finally build.
Plenty of supply. Not enough demand.
HLRBO runs a two-sided rental marketplace, property owners on one side and renters on the other, and when we plugged in it had supply but not nearly enough demand. Paid was spending against the wrong intent, the content didn't speak to either side, and nobody could say which channel actually produced a match rather than just a signup.
What they had going for them
- Property owners already on the platform, so supply was never the constraint
- A real two-sided marketplace with a countable unit of success: the match
- A model where matches compound on their own once both sides show up
What was quietly costing them
- Not nearly enough demand for the supply already there
- Paid spending against the wrong intent
- Content that didn't speak to either side
- No way to say which channel produced a match rather than just a signup
Paid was feeding the wrong side.
HLRBO had supply, property owners listed and waiting. What it didn't have was demand, and the paid budget was pointed at the side that already worked. Here is what both sides looked like once the budget flipped.
The whole engagement in one move, drawn to shape.
Buyer signups and cost per signup are indexed to where they stood when we plugged in.
The marketplace's two sides needed two different machines, and it had been running one. We split acquisition by side, rebuilt tracking around the match instead of the raw signup, and moved the paid budget to the demand side, where renter intent was already concentrated.
Then and now.
Every engagement starts with the same audit we'd run on your business. Here's how HLRBO's marketing graded when we plugged in, and how it grades today.
Acquisition was split by side and the budget moved to demand. Buyer signups grew 3.1× over two quarters, at roughly a third of the old cost per signup.
Supplier-side paid was killed and the dollars went to the demand side. Supplier activation still climbed 47%, and match rate went from 38% to 61%.
Tracking was rebuilt around the match, not the raw signup. Every channel is now graded on whether it produces matches, and by day 90 spend was re-weighted to the ones that do.
Splitting acquisition by side meant separate channels and separate messaging for buyers and suppliers, so each side finally heard its own case. Lifecycle work then pulled new buyers to a first match faster.
Cost per signup came down 64%, and payback came in under 60 days.
Tap any line for the detail →
Grades are how we score a marketing check-up. Every engagement is different; results shown are not a guarantee. How we present results
One marketplace, two machines.
The 30-Day Plug-In audit's biggest finding was that the marketplace's two sides needed two different machines, and it had been running one. The plan split acquisition by side, rebuilt tracking around the match, and went hunting for the search and social pockets where renter intent was already concentrated. It is the kind of work we run for founder-led startups.
The 30-Day Plug-In
- Audit, access, and the baseline on day one
- The finding: two sides, two machines, only one running
- Acquisition split by side, buyer campaigns live by day 30
The Operator Cadence
- A working session every week, a Friday update every week
- Hunted the high-intent search and social pockets that fed demand
- Every channel measured against matches, not signups
The 90-Day Rebuild
- Tracking rebuilt around the match, not the raw signup
- Spend re-weighted to the channels producing matches
- Lifecycle work pulled new buyers to a first match faster
Supplier-side paid. Supply was never the constraint, so the budget moved to demand.
What flipping the budget did.
Two quarters of buyer-side spend, measured against matches instead of raw signups. These are the numbers the engagement was run by.
Every engagement is different; results shown are not a guarantee.
Supply was never the constraint.
Property owners were listed and waiting. Once the spend flipped to the demand side, the matches started compounding on their own.
Buyer signups over two quarters, once the budget fed the demand side. Same marketplace, different aim.
How far cost per signup fell. A buyer now costs about a third of what one used to.
Match rate, up from 38%. Supplier activation climbed 47% right alongside it, even with supplier-side paid off.
Payback came in under that. It's the number that finally let HLRBO scale spend with confidence.
“We'd been pouring money into the wrong side of the market. Once that flipped, the matches started compounding on their own.”
Every engagement is different; results shown are not a guarantee. How we present results
More of the work: Scispot and Benchmark Insurance Group
Want results like this?
Curious what your own funnel could do? Book a free analysis, or see more of the work.