Social Security Disability Marketing

Social Security disability attorney reviewing appeal documents with an older client

Melanson Law Group is a father-and-son team of Social Security disability attorneys based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Jack Melanson spent 17 years as a federal Administrative Law Judge, and the firm has handled more than 6,000 disability claims.

The firm helps people with Social Security Disability Insurance applications, reconsiderations, appeals, and hearings across Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island.

Melanson was already publishing useful SSDI content and building service landing pages. JRR Marketing concentrated on Google Ads structure, search intent, location and age targeting, brand protection, and call tracking so more of the existing demand turned into measured enquiries.

The Challenge

Can we try to target folks aged 50-65? Those are the best leads for my business.

— Ned Melanson, Melanson Law Group

The baseline period wasn't short of traffic. Google Ads generated 1,054 clicks from $4,231 in spend, but only 10 conversions. That put cost per conversion at $423. The account needed fewer wasted clicks and more calls from claimants who matched the firm's SSDI intake criteria.

Ned's audience feedback gave the rebuild a useful constraint. We adjusted age targeting to focus on 45 to 65+, while retaining Google's unknown age group, then separated campaigns by state and intent. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Maine each needed their own budget and search terms instead of one account-wide approach.

We also launched a dedicated brand campaign after auction data showed another advertiser appearing above Melanson on firm-name searches. The campaign was changed to target absolute top impression share, while non-brand ad groups were divided between SSDI lawyer and appeal intent.

Search terms were reviewed against the cases Melanson accepts. Irrelevant competitor and non-SSDI searches were excluded, new exact and phrase keywords were added, and ads were rewritten around state-specific wording. We monitored Google Ads Quality Score signals without making benefit-approval promises that could breach the ABA rule on lawyer communications.

Tracking mattered as much as campaign structure. We audited the WhatConverts phone routing, corrected the forwarding setup, and matched calls and forms back to paid, organic, direct, Google Business Profile, and referral sources.

For the wider legal acquisition system, see our law firm marketing agency hub and lawyer PPC agency service.

What We Found in the Audit:

✕
Only 10 Google Ads conversions from $4,231 in the baseline period
✕
$423 cost per conversion before the account rebuild
✕
State and intake-stage intent needed separate campaign structures
✕
A competitor was appearing above Melanson on firm-name searches
✕
Age targeting didn't reflect the firm's strongest intake group
✕
Phone routing and lead classification needed further work

Equal periods: 17 March to 25 May versus 26 May to 3 August 2026

Before

Ads Conversions

Across the first 70-day comparison window

$423

Cost Per Conversion

$4,231 spent for 10 conversions

$4,231

Google Ads Spend

Before the account rebuild

430

Organic Clicks

Google Search Console baseline

Next 70 Days

Ads Conversions

410% more conversions

$69

Cost Per Conversion

84% lower than the prior period

$3,512

Google Ads Spend

17% less spend

3,459

Organic Clicks

704% more clicks

From $423 to $69 Per Conversion

Ten weeks of account structure, audience targeting, search-term work, and attribution

Week 1-2

Audit Ads, Intake & Tracking

Reviewed the existing Massachusetts SSDI account, search terms, conversion setup, landing-page destinations, and WhatConverts call routing. Set the equal-period baseline before making account changes.

Week 3-6

Separate States, Intent & Brand

Built Connecticut and Maine campaign structures around SSDI lawyer and appeal intent. Adjusted age targeting from client intake feedback and launched a dedicated brand campaign.

Week 7-10

Refine Queries, Ads & Attribution

Excluded irrelevant searches, expanded proven keyword themes, rewrote state-specific ads, reviewed Quality Score signals, and corrected call-forwarding attribution in WhatConverts.

And now, the results

Note: Percent changes compare equal 70-day periods, 17 March to 25 May and 26 May to 3 August 2026. The $63,000 figure is open quote value in WhatConverts, not closed revenue. Organic results include content published by Melanson Law Group.

+410%

Google Ads conversions

-84%

cost per conversion

+704%

organic clicks

$63k

open quote value

Screenshot 1 of Social Security Disability Marketing results from a JRR Marketing client account

Screenshot 2 of Social Security Disability Marketing results from a JRR Marketing client account

Screenshot 3 of Social Security Disability Marketing results from a JRR Marketing client account

Across equal 70-day periods, Google Ads conversions rose from 10 to 51, an increase of 410%. Spend went down 17%, from $4,231 to $3,512.

That combination reduced cost per Google Ads conversion from $423 to $68.87, an 84% reduction. The Massachusetts Search campaign produced 28 conversions at $72.74 each, Connecticut produced 14 at $59.45, and Local Services Ads added seven at $54.29.

Google Search Console recorded 3,459 organic clicks, up from 430 in the preceding period. Impressions increased from 87,328 to 259,586. Melanson was publishing its own SSDI content during this period, so we report that channel growth without claiming JRR wrote every page.

WhatConverts recorded 140 enquiries: 98 calls and 42 forms. Paid search accounted for 66, organic search for 42, and the remaining enquiries came from direct, Google Business Profile, referral, and other sources.

The same record contained $63,000 in open quote value. It isn't closed revenue. Twelve enquiries were marked Good, 71 were marked Bad, and 57 remained ungraded, so the next stage is improving lead classification and signed-case reporting rather than presenting every enquiry as qualified.

Law firms can compare this with our family law case study and criminal defence case study for two other legal markets.

4.8 stars out of 136+ reviews