Gerrard's Insurance · Google Ads

Landing Pages to Build

Nine pages, briefed and prioritised by where Quality Score is actually losing money.

Account 619-783-8695 · Prepared 13 Aug 2026
Sources: quality.csv (161 keywords with a live QS) · keyword80.csv (spend)
Page-level findings carried from the Landing Page Conversion Review, 12 Aug

1 · Why landing pages are the right lever

Quality Score has three components. In this account, two are healthy and one is not.

Expected CTR

64% above

25%

11%

healthy

Ad Relevance

47% above

36%

17%

acceptable

Landing Page Exp.

18%

47% average

35% below

the constraint

Green = above average · grey = average · red = below average. n = 161 keywords with a live Quality Score.

46%

of keyword spend ($7,416) sits on keywords rated below average for landing page experience

64%

of keywords earn an above-average expected CTR — the ads are working

6 → 1

six campaigns pointing at essentially one generic form

The root cause is architectural, not cosmetic

Commercial Property, CMV, Truck, Digger, Trades and General Business all point at essentially one LeadsHook form. Google is being asked to rate that same page as highly relevant to builder liability insurance, trailer insurance, body corporate insurance and business contents insurance nz. It can't be, and it isn't.

There is a second, less obvious problem.

A bare quote form is not a page

Google assesses Landing Page Experience on relevance, original useful content, transparency and navigability. A form tree with five option cards and a review wall gives the crawler almost nothing to assess.

That is the most likely reason even a well-matched page scores badly: the short-term-rental page matches its ads almost perfectly and still averages QS 2.5 across its 15 keywords.

The architecture rule for every page below: build a content page that contains the first quote step — not a form with decoration. Hero and matched question, then real content beneath it. The Rural page has the content and no form. The short-term-rental page has the form and thin content. Neither does both. Every page below must.

2 · The build list

#	Page	Slug	Spend on weak LP	Avg QS	Replaces
1	Business Insurance NZ	`/business-insurance-nz`	$4,335	4.7–5.3	generic form
2	Insurance Broker	`/insurance-broker-nz`	$539	4.0	generic form
3	Commercial Property & Building	`/commercial-property-insurance`	$1,084	5.0–6.0	`/e/v/299`
4	Truck, Fleet & Transport	`/truck-fleet-insurance-nz`	$416	2.2	`/e/v/299`
5	Builders & Construction	`/builders-insurance-nz`	$490	4.5	`/e/v/349`
6	Trades hub + 4 trade pages	`/trades-insurance/*`	$67	5.0–6.0	`/e/v/349`
7	Digger, Excavator & Machinery	`/digger-excavator-insurance`	see brief	—	`/e/v/299`
8	Short-term rental — fix, don't rebuild	existing	$367	2.5	—
9	Landlord / rental property	`/landlord-insurance-nz`	$2	5.0	none yet

If only four get built

Pages 1, 2, 3 and 4 cover $6,374 — 86% of all spend sitting on below-average landing page experience. Build those.

3 · The nine briefs

Each brief assumes the architecture rule above. Common guardrails are in §4 — read those before writing any of these.

1Business Insurance NZ/business-insurance-nzHighest value

Keywords	business insurance · small business insurance · best business insurance · commercial insurance · business liability insurance · company insurance · business insurance cost nz
Ad groups	Business Insurance Core ($3,056, QS 5.3) · COMMERCIAL COVERAGE ($755, QS 4.7) · General Business ($524, QS 4.7)
Currently	`…x5ulc` / `…BRd9t5` — generic "What do you want to protect?" form, no H1
Intent	Broad and early. Comparing, orienting, often price-checking. Not ready for a 10-step form.

Business insurance, compared across NZ insurers

One conversation, options from up to 20 insurers, and a broker who argues your case at claim time. Not a price-only comparison site.

Required content blocks

What business insurance actually covers — liability, property, vehicles, tools, business interruption, statutory liability. One short section each, plain English.
What drives your premium — industry, turnover, claims history, location, sum insured. This is "business insurance cost nz", answered.
How a broker differs from buying direct — the core Gerrard's argument, made once and made well.
Insurer panel — named, as the Rural page already does.
FAQ, 6–8 real questions — Do I need liability as a sole trader? What if I've been declined? How long does a quote take? Does using a broker cost me anything?

Quote step

Keep "What do you want to protect?" here — this is the one page where it's genuinely the right first question, because the intent really is undifferentiated. Present as a 2-up grid with all options visible without scrolling.

Success measure

Landing Page Experience moves off BELOW_AVERAGE on the three head terms within 4 weeks.

2Insurance Broker/insurance-broker-nzWorst QS cluster: 4.0

Keywords	insurance broker · business insurance brokers · business insurance broker · insurance broker auckland
Ad group	Broker Services — $539, 84 clicks, avg QS 4.0
Currently	`…BRd9t5` — a business insurance application form
Intent	Relationship, not quote. These people want a broker to talk to. They get a 10-step form.

Two datasets, one conclusion

This ad group converts at 5.6% — the weakest pocket of spend in the account. Its ads promise "Helpful Insurance Guidance | Personal Insurance Broker" and land on a business application form. The Quality Score and the conversion rate are both telling you the same thing.

Talk to an insurance broker in New Zealand

A named broker who handles the shopping, the paperwork and the claim — not a form and a call centre.

Required content blocks

What a broker actually does for you — and specifically what happens at claim time. This is the differentiator and it's barely argued anywhere on the current site.
Meet the brokers — real people, photos, credentials. The quote pages already carry Ethan's and Marcus's photos; put them where broker-seekers land.
How we're paid — brokers get asked this constantly. Answering plainly builds more trust than any badge. Confirm exact wording with Ethan.
FSP1003639, FMA licensing, IBANZ membership — transparency is an explicit Google criterion, and this is the page for it.
What happens after you get in touch — the first call, what to have ready, timeframes.

Primary CTA

"Talk to a broker" → phone plus a short callback form (name, phone, business type). Not the 10-step quote tree. A quote form is the wrong response to this query.

Check before building

The Auckland term suggests a location angle. A Locations CMS already exists in Webflow — decide whether this page links to the branch pages or is templated alongside them, rather than duplicating them.

3Commercial Property & Building Insurance/commercial-property-insurance

Keywords	business property insurance · business contents insurance nz · building insurance nz · commercial building insurance · body corporate insurance
Ad groups	Business Property Niche ($692, QS 6.0) · Building Insurance Focus ($392, QS 5.0)
Currently	`/e/v/299` — "Building/Property" is one of five generic options
Context	Commercial Property is the largest search campaign — $16,107 over 13 weeks

Commercial property & building insurance

Cover for the building, what's inside it, and the income it produces — from insurers who write commercial risk in New Zealand.

Required content blocks

Building vs contents vs business interruption — the distinction most buyers get wrong, and why underinsurance bites at claim time.
How sum insured is calculated — replacement vs indemnity, and why the number on the old policy is probably stale. Genuinely useful, and nobody in the NZ market explains it well.
Landlord / body corporate / owner-occupier — three different situations, named explicitly. "body corporate insurance" already converts from search terms.
Natural disaster and EQC context — high relevance for NZ commercial property.
FAQ — Is my tenant's stock covered? What about a vacant building? Do I need loss of rent?

Quote step

Skip straight to the property branch. Ask "What kind of property?" — owner-occupied / tenanted / body corporate / vacant. Not "What do you want to protect?"

4Truck, Fleet & Transport/truck-fleet-insurance-nzWorst QS in account: 2.2

Keywords	fleet insurance · trailer insurance · freight insurance · transport insurance · food truck
Ad group	Truck Insurance — $416, 48 clicks, avg QS 2.2. Also BELOW_AVERAGE on Ad Relevance ($293).
Currently	`/e/v/299` — the only relevant option is "Commercial Vehicles"

These five keywords are not one thing. A food truck operator, a freight company and someone insuring a trailer have almost nothing in common beyond wheels. One page and one ad group cannot serve them — which is exactly why Ad Relevance and Landing Page Experience are failing together here.

Truck, fleet & transport insurance

Cover for the vehicle, the load and the liability — placed with insurers who actually write NZ transport risk.

Required content blocks

Single truck vs fleet — where the pricing logic changes, and at what point fleet-rating makes sense.
Goods in transit / carriers liability — the cover most operators discover they needed after a claim. Directly matches "freight insurance" and "transit insurance nz".
Trailers and attached plant — when they're covered under the prime mover and when they're not.
Mobile food and vending — small but distinct; matches "food truck" and stops that click landing somewhere irrelevant.
RUC, COF and operator licensing context — signals genuine NZ transport knowledge.

Quote step

"What do you need covered?" — single truck / fleet / trailer only / goods in transit / mobile food unit.

Do this alongside the page

Split the ad group. Trailer, freight and food truck each deserve their own ad text. The page fix alone will not lift Ad Relevance.

5Builders & Construction/builders-insurance-nz

Keywords	construction insurance nz · builder liability insurance · builders insurance nz · builder insurance new zealand
Ad group	Builders_Insurance_SKAG — $490, avg QS 4.5
Currently	`/e/v/349` — generic form

The SKAG structure is already right. The page is what's missing.

Insurance for builders & construction

Public liability, contract works, tools and vehicles — sorted in one go, with the certificates your main contractor will ask for.

Required content blocks

Contract works vs public liability vs tools — the three covers builders confuse.
Certificates of currency — practical, frequently needed, almost never written about.
Subcontractors — who covers whom, and where the gap opens up.
Sole trader vs company vs labour-only — different exposure, named plainly.
FAQ — Do I need cover for a job I've already started? What if the client requires $5m?

Copy this pattern

Contract Works already has its own page (…Q3bH1J) and a QS-healthy structure. Its first question explains why it's asking — "Different builds carry very different risk profiles". That is the best question design in the account. Use it here, and interlink the two pages.

6Trades hub + four trade pages/trades-insurance/*Clone, don't author

Keywords	plumber insurance · electrician insurance nz · electrical work insurance · electrician liability insurance · landscaping business insurance · contractor insurance
Ad groups	Plumbers_SKAG ($36, QS 6.0) · Electricians_SKAG (QS 5.3) · Landscaper_SKAG (QS 5.0) · Trade_Catchall ($31, QS 5.0)
Currently	all → `/e/v/349`

Low spend today, but the SKAGs already exist and the pages are cheap once the builders template is built. Build page 5 first, then clone the pattern. Do not author these from scratch.

Structure: a /trades-insurance hub, plus /plumbers, /electricians, /landscapers, /contractors. Each page changes the trade-specific risks, the typical liability limit and the FAQ. Everything else is templated.

What must genuinely differ per trade

The two or three claims that actually happen in that trade
Whether statutory or professional liability applies — it does for electricians in a way it doesn't for landscapers
Typical tool values and where cover usually falls short

Doorway-page gate

If you can't write three genuinely trade-specific paragraphs, don't build the page. Thin near-duplicates lower Landing Page Experience rather than raising it. The Locations CMS work already applies a doorway-page gate — hold these to the same standard.

7Digger, Excavator & Machinery/digger-excavator-insurance

Justified by the CRO finding, not the QS data

Be clear on this one. The only Digger keyword flagged BELOW_AVERAGE is "hgv insurance" at $0 spend, so Quality Score is not currently the argument.

The argument is this: the Digger campaign spends $3,647 over 13 weeks, and its ads promise "Digger Insurance", "Excavator Insurance", "Bulldozer Insurance Specialist" and "Machinery Insurance" — while the landing page's five options contain no digger, no excavator, no machinery. Visitors must self-classify a 20-tonne excavator as either "Commercial Vehicles" or "Tools & Equipment". That is a dead end by inspection, and needs no statistics.

Digger, excavator & machinery insurance

Required content blocks

Owned vs hired-in plant
Machinery in transit
Operator liability
Where a digger sits between "vehicle" and "equipment" — the exact confusion the current page creates
What happens on hire agreements requiring specified cover

Quote step

"What machinery?" — digger/excavator · loader/bulldozer · attachments and small plant · full yard.

Minimum viable version — do this week

If the full page can't be built quickly, add a machinery option to the existing form now. The dead end is the urgent part; the page is the durable fix.

8Short-term rental — fix, don't rebuildexisting pageNot a build

Keywords	airbnb insurance · airbnb host insurance · airbnb property insurance · bach insurance · holiday home insurance nz · short term rental insurance
Ad group	Ad group 1 — 15 keywords, $367, avg QS 2.5. Also BELOW_AVERAGE on Ad Relevance ($692).
Currently	`start.gerrards.co.nz/f/short-term-rental-insurance/`

Do not rebuild this

This is the best-designed asset in the account — specific H1, named objection, trust row, progress bar, 0.46 MB, half-second load. Rebuilding it would destroy value.

But QS 2.5 says Google isn't rating it. Three plausible reasons, all fixable:

Thin on crawlable content — three short blocks and a funnel. Almost nothing to assess against 15 distinct keywords.
On a funnel subdomain with no site context, no navigation, no internal links.
One ad group holds 15 keywords spanning airbnb / bach / holiday home / short-term rental — which is why Ad Relevance is also below average.

Do this instead of building

Add real content beneath the funnel: what standard home policies exclude and why · guest damage vs malicious damage · loss of rental income · body corporate rules for short-term letting · a proper FAQ
Add site navigation and internal links so it reads as part of gerrards.co.nz
Split the ad group — bach and holiday home are different searches from airbnb host
Fix CLS 0.232 (font loading), flagged in the CRO review

The bigger lever here isn't the page

Only 36% of this campaign's spend lands on short-term-rental intent. The rest goes to "house insurance for seniors nz", "house insurance calculator", "initio insurance nz". On-target terms convert at 16.1%; off-target at 3.7%. A negatives sweep will move this campaign further than any page work.

9Landlord / rental property/landlord-insurance-nzBuild before scaling

Keywords	rental property insurance nz · rental property insurance · insurance for rental property
Ad group	Rental & Investment Property — $2 spend, QS 5.0. Also BELOW_AVERAGE Ad Relevance ($67).
Currently	Landlord Insurance is a brand-new campaign — 3 clicks, $13 total

Build the page before scaling spend, not after.

Content that must be there

Meth contamination
Loss of rent
Malicious tenant damage
Landlord vs owner-occupier policy differences
Short-term vs long-term letting

Two things to check first

Cannibalisation: there is already a /personal/landlord-insurance-nz page on the main site. Decide whether this extends that page rather than competing with it — two Gerrard's pages on the same term split authority.

Panel: the existing landlord page names its insurer panel, and Vero is a partner — do not run conquest angles against them. Confirm wording with Ethan before publishing.

4 · Guardrails for every page

Brand & compliance

Broker-positioned, never policy claims. Gerrard's doesn't underwrite. Not "we cover X" but "we place cover with insurers who write X". Every claim about what a policy does must be attributable to the insurer.
No competitor conquest. See §5.
Info-seekers are welcome — content that answers a question without forcing a quote is fine, and helps Landing Page Experience.

What Google is actually rating

Relevance — the page names the thing they searched for, in the H1, above the fold
Original useful content — the coverage explainers and FAQs are the point, not filler
Transparency — FSP1003639, FMA licensing, addresses, how you're paid, privacy
Navigability and speed — real navigation, internal links, under 1 MB on mobile

Technical floor — these are current live failures, not hypotheticals

Under 1 MB on mobile. The Rural page currently ships 15.1 MB in two images.
Every page needs an <h1>. Four of the seven live pages have none.
No redirect between ad click and page — the /e/v/ experiment hop costs ~0.6 s.
Explicit width/height on images, lazy-load below the fold, font-display set.

Production path

Build in Webflow as drafts in the "Ethans Sign-offs" collection — the webflow-content skill handles this.
Name each item individually as it's promoted; don't batch.
Generate JSON-LD from the page's own NAP so page and schema can't drift.

5 · What not to build

Three competitor-brand keywords are live right now

These appear in the below-average landing page experience list — but the fix is removal, not a landing page.

Keyword	Campaign	QS	Spend	Clicks
`state commercial insurance`	CMV	3	$98	10
`ami business car insurance`	CMV	4	$19	2
`state commercial vehicle insurance`	CMV	4	$0	0

Their Quality Score is low precisely because no Gerrard's page can be relevant to a competitor's brand — and building one would be the wrong move commercially and legally. Pause them and add the brand terms as campaign negatives.

6 · Sequencing & measurement

Build order

1 → 2 → 4 → 3 → 5 → 7 → (6 as clones) → 9. Page 8 is a fix rather than a build and can run in parallel. Pages 1–4 cover 86% of the affected spend.

Timing — don't judge early

Quality Score re-rates on accumulated data, not instantly. Expect 3–4 weeks after a page goes live before the component rating moves. Reading it sooner will just show noise.

What to measure, in this order

Landing Page Experience rating per keyword — the direct target, binary and unambiguous
Quality Score on the head term in each cluster
Average CPC — the commercial payoff. Higher QS lowers what you pay for the same position.
Conversion rate — secondary here. Per the CRO review it can't be A/B tested at this volume; read it before/after with the date window fixed in advance.

One caution carried forward

The conversion data underneath all of this sits on tracking that isn't fully verified — quote.gerrards.co.nz serves an undocumented container (GTM-KSQMRC7), and the Google Ads auth-proxy question is still open.

Quality Score component ratings come from Google directly and are unaffected, which makes them the safer success measure right now.

Sources — clients/gerrards-insurance/data/{quality,keyword80,diag_ads,search80}.csv, exported 12 Aug 2026 05:00 NZ via gads-proxy. Quality Score components are Google's own ratings as at that export; spend figures are 30-day keyword-level from the top-80%-of-spend export. Page-level speed, fold and ad-to-page findings carried from the Landing Page Conversion Review of 12 Aug 2026.