Paid Search vs Paid Social: Where Advisers Get the Best ROI

Paid search captures existing demand-prospects actively searching for financial advice or specific services. When someone searches "pension consolidation advice" or "financial adviser near me," they have immediate, explicit intent. Paid search puts your message in front of people already looking for what you offer. Social media advertising, conversely, interrupts people engaged in other activities-browsing their feed, reading articles, watching videos. They are not actively seeking financial advice at that moment. This fundamental difference shapes everything about campaign strategy, messaging approach, conversion rates, and cost-effectiveness. Neither approach is inherently superior, but they suit different scenarios and require different execution strategies to succeed.

Google Ads typically delivers the highest quality leads for financial advisers because search intent is explicit and immediate. Someone searching for specific financial services is ready to engage, often actively comparing advisers, and frequently converts relatively quickly. Conversion rates from Google Ads for financial services typically range from 3-8% for well-optimised campaigns-significantly higher than any other digital marketing channel.

However, this quality comes at a price. Competitive financial services keywords often cost £8-30 per click, with highly competitive terms like "financial adviser" or "wealth management" reaching £40+ per click in major cities. This means generating a qualified lead typically costs £80-200, and acquiring a client may cost £800-2,500 depending on service type and adviser conversion rates.

For advisers with strong conversion processes and high client lifetime values, this represents excellent ROI. For those with weak conversion or serving mass-market clients, Google Ads quickly becomes uneconomical.

LinkedIn offers unique advantages for advisers targeting business owners, executives, or high-net-worth professionals. The platform's targeting capabilities-by job title, company size, industry, seniority-enable precision that other channels cannot match. If you exclusively serve dental practice owners or software company executives, LinkedIn can target them specifically. However, LinkedIn advertising suffers from several limitations: costs are high (£5-12+ per click), audience sizes can be small for niche targeting, and prospects are not actively seeking financial advice when browsing LinkedIn. Lead generation campaigns on LinkedIn typically convert at 1-3%, significantly lower than Google but better than Facebook. The quality of leads varies substantially-some campaigns produce excellent prospects, while others generate tyre-kickers or people unclear on what they are requesting. LinkedIn works best for advisers with very specific professional niches, high minimum client values that justify premium lead costs, and strong nurture processes to convert lower-intent prospects over time.

Facebook and Instagram offer massive reach and relatively low costs-clicks often cost £1-3, much cheaper than Google or LinkedIn. This creates appeal for advisers seeking lead volume on limited budgets. However, lead quality tends to be substantially lower because prospects are not actively seeking financial advice when they encounter your ads.

Conversion rates from social media advertising for financial services typically run 0. 5-2%, and prospects often require much longer nurture periods to convert than paid search leads. Additionally, Facebook and Instagram present compliance challenges for regulated financial services-the casual browsing context and broad audience make it difficult to ensure only appropriate audiences see investment promotions or that messaging maintains the seriousness financial services require.

Some advisers successfully use Facebook for very specific offers-pension review campaigns targeted at people aged 50-65, for example-but broad awareness campaigns rarely justify their costs when lead quality is factored in.

The right channel depends heavily on what you offer and whom you serve. Google Ads excels for: pension consolidation (high search volume, clear intent), mortgage advice (massive search volume), protection (people actively seeking life insurance or income protection), and local financial planning (strong geo-targeted searches). LinkedIn works best for: wealth management targeting executives, business owner services (pension planning, exit planning, key person insurance), and workplace financial wellness programmes. Facebook can work for: pension reviews targeted by age, retirement planning for specific professions, and simple protection products. Instagram rarely works for financial services given its young demographic and visual, casual nature. Most successful adviser marketing strategies use multiple channels but with clear strategic logic-Google for high-intent services, LinkedIn for professional niche targeting, email to nurture all leads regardless of source.

Financial advisers often underinvest in digital marketing, spreading small budgets across multiple channels and achieving mediocrity everywhere. Effective paid advertising requires sufficient budget to generate meaningful data and optimise performance. For Google Ads, £2,000-5,000 monthly minimum is typically needed to generate enough leads for statistical significance and campaign optimisation. LinkedIn requires similar investment given higher costs per click. Facebook can produce results with smaller budgets (£1,000-2,000 monthly) but lead quality concerns mean more volume is needed to achieve client acquisition targets. Many advisers would achieve better results investing their entire budget in Google Ads rather than splitting it across multiple channels. This is especially true for generalist advisers without specific professional niches-Google captures existing demand efficiently, while social media tries to create demand, a much harder and more expensive task.

For the majority of financial advisers, Google Ads should be the primary paid advertising channel. The combination of high intent, strong conversion rates, and ability to target specific services makes it the most reliably effective lead generation channel. Budget permitting, LinkedIn should be added second for advisers serving professional niches where its targeting capabilities provide clear advantages.

Facebook and Instagram should generally be considered tertiary channels, used only after Google and LinkedIn are performing well and only for specific, well-defined campaigns rather than general awareness. This recommendation is based on data across hundreds of adviser campaigns-Google consistently delivers the best cost-per-client and highest lead quality, LinkedIn works for specific scenarios, and Facebook rarely justifies its costs when conversion rates and lead quality are honestly assessed. Advisers who follow platform trends and invest in "hot" new channels typically waste substantial budget that would deliver better returns through Google Ads.