$750 a month: the real marketing proposal we sent a preschool

The client operates a bilingual, English and Spanish, early childhood learning center in the Miami, Florida area, founded in 2008 and serving children from roughly one to eight years old. Programs include early childhood development, standard preschool, a state-funded voluntary pre-kindergarten program for eligible families, and general child care, with healthy meals provided and hours running early morning to early evening on weekdays.

A preschool's growth almost always comes down to one number: how many tours convert into an enrolled family, since capacity is physically limited by classroom space and licensing, unlike a service business that can, in theory, serve an unlimited number of customers.

The inquiry that led to this proposal was short: a one-word message reading simply the client's goal, more enrollments, with a request for Google Ads help checked on the intake form. That single word set the framing for the entire pitch, which was built explicitly around tour bookings becoming enrolled families rather than around traffic or clicks as an end in themselves.

The client's own existing website named no owner or director anywhere, listed no prices, and did not display any licensing or accreditation information, which meant the sample built for the pitch also avoided naming an owner or inventing a credential the client had not already published.

The offer bundled four things into one flat monthly fee: a custom website, search engine optimization built out over time toward several hundred pages of content, Google Ads management, and email marketing. The pitch specifically named Google Search alongside several major AI answer platforms as the target for ranking, rather than describing search visibility in vague terms, since a family increasingly starts this kind of search inside a chat assistant as often as inside a traditional search engine.

The ad-spend line followed the agency's standard separation: the client sets and controls her own advertising budget, kept apart from the flat $750 management fee, rather than that budget being bundled into the number quoted.

A single-page sample home was built around four program cards mapped directly onto the center's real age groups and offerings, a section on why families stay built from the center's own real facts, its founding year, its bilingual model, its meals, and its hours, a photo section, and a visit section carrying the center's real address, phone number, email, and hours alongside a demo tour-request form.

Every photograph used in the final version was a licensed stock image chosen to represent the center's own age range and setting realistically, swapped in for an earlier placeholder set once a technical access issue on the agency's side was resolved partway through the build.

No owner or director name was added anywhere on the sample, since the center's own site did not name one either. No licensing number, accreditation claim, or price was invented, for the same reason: none of those appeared on the center's own existing website, so none were fabricated to fill the gap.

The sample kept its claims to what the center's own site already stated: its founding year, its bilingual model, its meal program, and its hours, rather than adding any unverified detail about class sizes, staff-to-child ratios, or outcomes that were not already published.

The proposal was sent within days of the client's inquiry, with a same-day polish pass on the cover wording and one photo swap made before the final send. It was sent again roughly a week later after the tracked link showed no recorded visit from the client's own inbox, an ordinary follow-up rather than a change to the offer itself.

Neither the original send nor its follow-up shows a recorded response in the file this page draws from.