Landing pages are treated as someone else's job and then blamed for the cost per lead. They are part of the campaign.
A campaign is only as good as the page it lands on, which everybody agrees with and almost nobody staffs for. The ads get weekly attention. The page gets built once, by someone else, and is then held responsible for a cost per lead it had no say in.
The arithmetic makes the case on its own. Moving a landing page from two percent to three percent conversion is a fifty percent improvement in cost per acquisition, applied to every rupee already being spent, on every channel at once. There is no bid adjustment that does that. It is also permanent in a way a media optimisation is not.
What usually costs the conversions is not subtle: a form asking for eight fields when three would do, a page that takes six seconds on a mid-range phone over patchy mobile data, a headline that does not match the ad that produced the click, or a checkout that demands an account before it will quote shipping. Session recordings and heatmaps find most of it in an afternoon.
The match between ad and page deserves particular attention, because it is both the most common failure and the easiest to fix. If the ad promises a specific thing and the page opens with a general homepage message, the visitor has to do translation work, and a meaningful share of them decline to.
This is why we build the page, the creative and the tracking together rather than treating the page as a dependency somebody else owns. Where a client already has a site we work on it directly, and where the build is bigger than a page we hand across to Blulink Developments. Either way it is not somebody else's problem, because the number it moves is ours.