$2,500 down to $1,000 a month: a mortgage agent's real marketing proposal

The client is a licensed mortgage agent operating under a mortgage brokerage in the Toronto, Ontario area, focused specifically on reverse mortgages and refinancing. A reverse mortgage lets a homeowner aged 55 or older borrow against home equity without selling or making required monthly payments, which makes trust and clarity the entire sales job: the buyer is almost always older, is not shopping on price alone, and needs to understand a product that sounds unfamiliar the first time they hear it.

The request that started this proposal came in through a standard inquiry form and asked for both a new website and Google Ads management, with the agent's own words describing a specialization in reverse mortgages and refinancing.

The finding that shaped everything else was simple and serious: the client's own domain, both with and without the www prefix, returned a raw error page reading that the page could not be found, on every URL checked, including the homepage. The site's sitemap file existed but listed zero pages. There was no history of a live site at that domain to be found either, meaning this was a business with essentially no working website at all, not a slow or outdated one.

That single fact reframed the ask. The client had also requested Google Ads management, but running paid clicks to a domain that returns an error page burns money with nothing to show for it, so the website had to come first regardless of which pricing structure eventually went out.

The first quote sent to the client itemized three things separately: a $2,500 CAD one-time website package, described using the agency's own named starter tier and covering up to five pages, a $600 CAD a month Google Ads management fee following the agency's standard model of ten percent of ad spend with that figure as the minimum, and a $25 a month hosting fee. Month to month, no contract, on the ads and hosting.

Within about a week, before the client had responded, the offer was rebuilt from the ground up. The revised version replaced all three separate line items with one flat $1,000 CAD a month covering the website, ongoing content built out toward several hundred pages over time, and indexing across Google and major AI answer engines. The paid-ads line was dropped entirely in favor of this organic-first approach, on the reasoning that a regulated financial product with an older buyer benefits more from being findable and trustworthy everywhere a search happens than from paid clicks alone.

The revised, simpler offer, $1,000 CAD a month, everything included, is what the client actually received by email, and it carried a 30-day guarantee: if it is not working after the first month, the client does not pay for it. The rewritten cover letter dropped the earlier version's heavy focus on the broken-website finding and instead led with how leads would actually be generated, at the client's own request after seeing an early draft.

The same email was sent again roughly two weeks later, since the client had not opened or responded to the first send, an unremarkable follow-up rather than a sign of anything unusual.

Nothing about a specific interest rate, loan amount, or dollar figure appears anywhere in either version of the proposal or the sample website built alongside it. The agent's own published years of experience conflicted across different sources online, so no number of years was used at all rather than guessing which figure was accurate.

Product claims about reverse mortgages were kept to general, accurate statements: the homeowner stays on title, there are no required monthly payments, and the proceeds are a loan rather than income, so they are not taxed. The agent's real license number was carried through to the sample site's footer in both versions, since a mortgage professional's license number is a compliance requirement, not an identifying detail that needed to be removed for a real client but appropriately withheld from a page like this one.

Both the itemized version and the flat-fee version were sent as real proposals, days apart, to the same prospective client. As of the most recent record, no visit from the client's own inbox had yet been logged against the tracked link, and the source dossier does not say whether either offer was accepted.

Neither send's outcome made it into the record this page is built from, so neither is claimed here.