Post-Campaign Report · interim
Free webinar with Suzi Dafnis, Thursday 20 August 2026, 10:00am AEST · selling The Leadership Lab, four Tuesdays from 1 September.
Compiled Friday 21 August 2026, the morning after · All money in AUD · Compared against the March 2026 run of this same webinar, which sold the March Leadership Lab.
The webinar filled a bigger room than it has ever filled — 152 registrations against a target of 130, and double the 76 that registered for the March run. Attendance held at 41%. What has not yet followed is the enrolment: six people have joined The Leadership Lab so far — five of them out of this room, one from a campaign email — where March finished with twenty-one.
Each number sits next to the March 2026 run of the same webinar, so it reads as better, worse, or normal rather than in a vacuum. March is the only true like-for-like we have: same title, same speaker, same offer at the end.
Counting note: the attended tag holds 62 people and the no-show tag 91, which totals 153 against 152 registrations — one contact carries both tags or is a duplicate record. It does not move any percentage materially, but it is named here rather than quietly rounded away.
In March this webinar ran without a paid ad campaign behind it. It drew half the audience and sold four times as many seats. That contrast is the most important thing in this report, and it needs handling carefully, because one campaign is finished and the other is not.
| March 2026 | August 2026 | Reading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Registrations | 76 | 152 | Double the room, on the back of the ads |
| Attended live | 35 | 62 | Nearly double, at a slightly lower rate (46% → 41%) |
| Lab enrolments | 21 | 6 | March final; August still open. Five came out of this room, one from a campaign email |
| — of those, existing members | 13 | 2 | March sold heavily to people who were already members |
| — of those, non-members | 8 | 4 | The comparable number, and much closer than the headline |
| Webinar conversion on attendees | 60% | 8.1% | The gap this campaign has to close in eleven days |
The cart is still open. March’s 21 is a finished number. August’s 6 is one day old, with eleven days to run. No honest conclusion about the final result can be drawn today.
March sold mostly to members. Thirteen of March’s twenty-one enrolments were existing members; this run has one. If the Lab was included in, or discounted for, membership in March, then March’s headline conversion is not measuring the same act of buying. Worth confirming before this comparison is shown to anyone.
March’s audience was almost entirely Australian and almost entirely known to us. August’s room was a quarter North American and two thirds brand new. A colder, more distant room converting less is not a surprise — the question is whether the extra volume eventually pays for itself.
March’s attribution was not yet built. Of its 76 registrations, 62 carry no tracked source at all — the create-with-fields work that now captures source, medium and country did not land until July. So March gives us reliable counts — registered, attended, enrolled — and nothing reliable about where those people came from.
There is also no enrolment timestamp on either cohort. The Leadership Lab tag records that someone enrolled, not when. So the pace of March’s twenty-one — whether they arrived on the day or trickled over a fortnight — cannot be reconstructed, which is precisely the thing that would tell us whether six on day one is behind or on track.
Recording the enrolment date on the contact would fix this permanently, and is the single highest-value change to make before the next campaign.
Source is the last tracked click before registering. The pattern repeats what Becoming Magnetic found three weeks earlier: the ads bring volume, email brings people who actually turn up.
| Source | Registered | Attended | Show-up | Enrolled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Meta ads | 95 | 29 | 31% | 2 |
| Email (ours) | 45 | 27 | 60% | 2 |
| Untracked | 10 | 5 | 50% | 1 |
| Members Hub | 2 | 1 | — | 0 |
| Total | 152 | 62 | 41% | 5 |
Enrolments here count webinar registrants only. The launch total is six — the sixth enrolled from a campaign email without registering, so she does not appear in this table.
Email produced less than half the registrations the ads did and delivered almost as many people into the room — 27 against 29. On enrolments the two are level at two apiece, with the fifth coming through an untracked door.
This campaign advertised into the United States and Australia at the same time. The country of each registrant comes from the IP address captured at sign-up. Splitting the funnel by country produces the clearest finding in this report.
| Country | Registered | Attended | Show-up | Enrolled |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 79 | 41 | 52% | 5 |
| New Zealand | 31 | 12 | 39% | 0 |
| Canada | 23 | 5 | 22% | 0 |
| United States | 15 | 3 | 20% | 0 |
| Other | 4 | 1 | — | 0 |
| Total | 152 | 62 | 41% | 5 |
Enrolments here count webinar registrants only. The launch total is six — the sixth enrolled from a campaign email without registering, so she does not appear in this table.
The finding
Thirty-eight registrations came from the United States and Canada. Eight of them attended — a 21% show-up against Australia’s 52% — and none has enrolled. A 10:00am Sydney start is 8:00pm the previous evening on the US east coast and 5:00pm on the west. The registrations were real; the attendance was never going to be.
Those 38 people are not wasted — they are on the list now, and Becoming Magnetic showed how long a planted contact can take to convert. But they should not be counted as an audience for a live Australian-morning webinar, and the cost of acquiring them should be judged as list-building, not as enrolment.
Canada is the quieter surprise. It produced 23 registrations to the United States’ 15, off ads targeted at the US. Whatever Meta’s delivery is doing, it is finding more Canadians than Americans, at a similar hour of the day and with the same result at the end — no enrolments from either.
Each ad is identified by the utm_content it carried. The -us variants are the US-targeted creative; the rest ran locally. 89 of the 95 ad registrations carry an identifiable ad; six do not.
| Ad | Registered | Attended | Show-up | Enrolled | Where they were |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ad6 | 36 | 10 | 28% | 1 | 22 AU, 14 NZ |
| ad6-us | 19 | 5 | 26% | 0 | 10 CA, 8 US, 1 other |
| ad8 | 13 | 6 | 46% | 1 | 9 AU, 3 NZ, 1 other |
| ad8-us | 10 | 1 | 10% | 0 | 7 CA, 3 US |
| ad_1 | 4 | 1 | 25% | 0 | 4 NZ |
| ad_4 | 3 | 2 | 67% | 0 | 3 AU |
| ad_2 | 2 | 1 | — | 0 | 1 AU, 1 NZ |
| us-ad2 | 2 | 0 | — | 0 | 2 CA |
ad6 was the volume ad and ad8 the efficient one. ad6 brought 36 registrations at a 28% show-up; ad8 brought a third as many but put nearly half of them in the room and produced an enrolment from thirteen registrations. Both of this campaign’s ad-sourced enrolments — Deb Meyer and Delvene Woltmann — came from the local versions of those two ads.
Of the 95 ad registrations, 91 were people who had never been on our list before. Only four were existing contacts walking back in through an ad. That is a very different mix from Becoming Magnetic, where ten of ninety ad registrations were re-activations — and it means this campaign spent its money almost entirely on new names rather than on waking up the list.
From the Zoom join-and-leave log. Suzi opened the room at 9:28am and the session ran to 10:59:51 — 92 minutes of room time around roughly an hour of content. Every count below is real people in the room that minute, with hosts, panellists and one AI notetaker bot excluded.
8 people at 9:55, 31 by 10:00, 48 by 10:05. The room peaked at 55 at 10:09 and then simply held — between 53 and 55 people for the twenty-six minutes from 10:10 to 10:35. The decline afterwards was gentle rather than a cliff: 49 at 10:40, 43 at 10:45, 34 at 10:55, and 24 still there when Suzi finished.
Sixty-two people attended and the median one stayed 52 minutes. Only four left inside ten minutes. The room held its peak for half an hour without the usual mid-session bleed. On the evidence of the log, the content held people — whatever is suppressing enrolments, it does not look like the webinar losing the room.
Between 49 and 34 people were present across the final twenty minutes, so whenever the offer landed in that window, somewhere between about 34 and 49 people heard it. Pinning that down exactly needs the session transcript with a timestamp for the price — the one remaining piece that would make this section complete.
Zero questions in the Q&A and two reactions in the whole session — a heart from Belinda Weaver at 10:07 and a thumbs-up from Deb Meyer at 10:04, who went on to enrol. For comparison, the Becoming Magnetic session had the currency question asked four separate times out loud.
A room that stays 52 minutes but asks nothing is not disengaged; it is passive. If the Q&A was not opened or not prompted, that is a missed read on objections — and objections unspoken in the room are objections that surface later as not buying.
Worth checking with Suzi whether Q&A was enabled and invited.
Zoom counted 157 registrants against GoHighLevel’s 152. Three of Zoom’s are internal test records (two team test addresses and one dated Claude test contact), which GoHighLevel excludes, and the remaining pair are duplicate registrations under second addresses. Zoom’s own attendance rate of 39% is calculated on its 157; on the 152 real registrations it is 41%. One attendee joined via an Otter.ai notetaker bot, which is excluded here but sits inside Zoom’s 82 “total users”.
Splitting the 152 by whether the contact existed before this campaign started separates the two jobs a campaign does: filling a room, and building a list.
| Registered | Attended | Show-up | Enrolled | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand new to the list | 98 | 29 | 30% | 2 |
| Already on the list | 54 | 33 | 61% | 3 |
| Total | 152 | 62 | 41% | 5 |
Enrolments here count webinar registrants only. The launch total is six — the sixth enrolled from a campaign email without registering, so she does not appear in this table.
Fifty-four known contacts put more people in the room than ninety-eight new ones. This is the same conclusion Becoming Magnetic reached from a different direction, and it is the argument for judging the 98 new names as next campaign’s asset rather than this one’s failure.
Every enrolment to date, with how each one arrived. All six are Australian. Five were in the room live; the sixth never registered for the webinar at all, and came straight off a campaign email.
| # | Name | Country | Came via | On the list since | Her path |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Deb Meyer Vogue & Vine | AU | Meta ad — ad6 | 20 Aug — webinar day | Clicked ad6, registered, attended, and enrolled — the whole journey inside a single day. The cleanest ad-to-enrolment line of the campaign. |
| 2 | Delvene Woltmann Kewpie | AU | Meta ad — ad8 | 17 Aug | Came in on ad8 three days before the webinar, attended, enrolled. ad8’s only enrolment from thirteen registrations. |
| 3 | Michelle Nohotima Always Able | AU | 19 June | On the list two months, registered from an email, attended, enrolled. | |
| 4 | Diana Burns | AU | 19 June | Same cohort as Michelle — joined the list on the same day in June, and converted through the same email door. | |
| 5 | Androulla Sakkas Empower Beyond · current member | AU | Untracked | 4 June | Registered without a tracked source, attended, enrolled. Her seat was taken against membership credit rather than a card. |
| 6 | Maaike van Besien Maaidesign · current member | AU | Campaign email — ghl / email / leadership_lab_sep26 | 4 June | Not a webinar registrant. Enrolled 21 August from a Leadership Lab campaign email, with the member discount applied. The first enrolment of the launch that owes nothing to this webinar. |
Of the five who came out of the room, two came from ads inside the campaign fortnight and three were already known to us. The sixth arrived by a different door entirely. The geography is the striking part: six from six Australian, from a room that was only half Australian.
Five broadcasts went to the full list during the campaign fortnight, each to roughly 3,600 people, plus the registrant sequence.
| Date | Send | Recipients | Opened | Clicked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 6 Aug | From big ’80s hair to Bon Jovi’s spit zone | 3,671 | 14.9% | 0.4% |
| Mon 10 Aug | I refused to slice salami my whole life. | 3,603 | 18.2% | 0.2% |
| Wed 12 Aug | Enough of the AI templates | 3,582 | 17.3% | 0.3% |
| Sat 15 Aug | This word strikes fear into business owners… | 3,633 | 15.4% | 0.2% |
| Mon 17 Aug | See yourself differently. Free ticket — this Thursday! | 3,633 | — | — |
Open rates sit in the normal 15–18% band for this list. Click rates of 0.2–0.4% are low in absolute terms but produced 45 registrations, and those 45 were the best-behaved people in the campaign — 60% of them turned up. The 17 August send’s figures had not settled at the time of compiling.
Google Analytics for identitygap.herbusiness.com, 8–20 August. This was missing from the first version of this report because I queried the wrong endpoint, not because the tracking was absent — see section 12.
| Source in GA | People | Sessions | Engaged |
|---|---|---|---|
| facebook / paid | 700 | 729 | 26.3% |
| (direct) / (none) | 50 | 52 | 26.9% |
| zoom / webinar | 3 | 4 | 100% |
| facebook.com / referral | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Total | 771 | 787 | — |
The traffic shape matches the ad spend pattern exactly: a spike of 142 sessions on 11 August, 87 on 14 August, and a long tail through to webinar day. 747 of the 771 people were new to the site, which is what a cold paid campaign looks like. Twenty-one percent of the people who landed went on to register — almost identical to Becoming Magnetic’s 23%, so the page itself is converting at its normal rate.
Fifty-seven people gave up an hour of their Thursday morning and have not enrolled. This is the warmest list the campaign produced, and unlike the rest of this report it is drawn live — anyone who enrols drops off it automatically. Internal use only.
Loading the current list…
Two of the three gaps in the first version are now closed. What is left, and what was my error rather than a data gap.
Checked properly rather than assumed. There is no Meta or Facebook connector installed on the account — not disabled for this chat, not present at all. And the dashboard’s own Meta function looks for a META_TOKEN environment variable which is not set on the Netlify site; the twenty variables configured there cover GoHighLevel, Google Analytics, Xero, Libsyn, Supabase and Postmaster, and none of them is Meta.
To close it: add META_TOKEN and the ad account ID to the Netlify environment variables, and the existing endpoint starts working. Failing that, the campaign spend, impressions and clicks for 9–20 August pasted in by hand.
Supplied 21 August and folded into section 06. It answered the largest open question: the room peaked at 55, held that plateau for twenty-six minutes, and the median attendee stayed 52 minutes.
One piece would still improve it: a timestamp for when the price was announced, from the session transcript, so the “how many heard the offer” range of 34–49 can be made exact.
The first version said the landing page “did not surface in the property’s page report”. That was true of the query I ran and false as a conclusion. The dashboard’s Google endpoint has a campaign mode built for exactly this — ?report=campaign&host= — which filters GA4 to one hostname. I called the default mode, which reports the main site, saw no identitygap rows, and wrote up the absence instead of checking why.
The tracking was working the whole time. Section 10 is the data that was always there.
Work the 57 this week. They attended, they did not buy, and the first session is eleven days away. Every enrolment that lands between now and 1 September changes the conclusion of this report. Nothing else on this page is as time-sensitive.
Decide what the US ads are for. Thirty-one registrations, six attendees, no enrolments — against a webinar held at 8:00pm US eastern time. If North America is a market we want, it needs a session in its own daylight. If it is a list-building exercise, it should be measured as one and not expected to convert.
Record the enrolment date. The single most useful change before the next campaign. Without it we cannot tell whether six on day one is behind March’s pace or ahead of it — which is exactly the question being asked today.
Confirm what March’s twenty-one actually were. Thirteen of them were existing members. If the Lab was bundled with membership in March, the 60% conversion is not a benchmark this campaign should be judged against, and the honest comparison is 8 non-member enrolments against 4 so far.
Reconnect Meta. Two campaigns have now been reported without spend figures. Cost per registration is the number that decides whether the ads scale, and it is one environment variable away.
Open and invite the Q&A. Zero questions were asked in ninety-two minutes, from a room that stayed a median 52 minutes. Objections that do not get raised in the room turn into people who quietly do not buy.
Keep the country split. It was added to the launch cards this week and it immediately explained a result that would otherwise have looked like a messaging failure. It should be read on every campaign that advertises across time zones.