R&D Experiment: Running Google Ads in a Restricted Financial Niche Using a Telegram-Led Funnel

Why This Experiment Was Run

This was not a growth campaign and not a performance case study.

This was a controlled R&D experiment conducted in a restricted financial niche to solve a very specific problem:

How do you run Google Ads at all in a category where direct website advertising is not permitted, and cloaking systems are quickly detected and banned?

In this niche:

• Direct website ads are disallowed under Google policy

• Most cloaking setups fail under automated and manual review

• Account bans happen faster than meaningful learning cycles

Most advertisers either burn accounts or abandon the platform.

We chose neither.

The Real Constraint (Not a Choice)

This experiment did not remove the website for optimization reasons.

It removed the website because it could not legally or sustainably be used as the first interaction.

Attempting to do so would have resulted in:

• repeated disapprovals,

• short-lived campaigns,

• and eventual advertiser-level bans.

Cloaking was intentionally excluded because:

• Google detects most cloaking patterns quickly,

• enforcement escalates fast in finance,

• and short-term wins destroy long-term operability.

The funnel had to be redesigned from first principles.

The Actual Hypothesis

Given that:

• direct website traffic from ads is not allowed,

• cloaking is unreliable and high-risk,

• and account survivability matters more than short-term metrics,

our hypothesis was:

If we completely remove the website from the initial ad interaction and route traffic through a compliant, non-web intermediary that can qualify users and capture leads, Google Ads can be operated without triggering enforcement — while still building a functional lead-generation system.

This was a structural survival test, not a performance test.

The Funnel Architecture Tested

Instead of the standard model:

Google Ad → Website → Conversion

We tested:

Google Ad → Interactive Entry Point → Telegram Bot → Website (Deferred)

Each layer existed to satisfy a specific constraint.

Why Telegram Was Central to the Funnel

Telegram was not chosen for convenience or novelty.

It was chosen because it solved multiple problems simultaneously.

Telegram Functioned As:

A Policy-Safe Intermediary

Traffic did not land on a restricted website immediately, reducing policy exposure.

An Intent Qualification Layer

Users self-selected by engaging, filtering out low-intent traffic.

A Lead Capture Mechanism

Every user entering Telegram became an addressable lead.

An Owned Distribution Channel

Future communication was no longer dependent on paid ads.

Telegram allowed sequencing, explanation, and progression without violating Google’s ad policies.

Why the Website Was Deferred

The website was not eliminated.

It was intentionally delayed.

Instead of being the first touchpoint, it became:

• a downstream validation step,

• a deeper information layer,

• and a post-qualification destination.

This significantly reduced risk while preserving functionality.

What This Experiment Was Not About

• :x: Revenue screenshots

• :x: ROAS or CPA benchmarks

• :x: Budget scaling

• :x: Sales claims

None of those matter if the account cannot survive.

This experiment focused on whether operation itself was possible.

What We Evaluated Instead

Platform Survivability

• Could ads remain live without repeated disapprovals?

• Could the account operate without enforcement escalation?

Funnel Control

• Could user flow be guided without exposing restricted assets?

• Could intent be established before any sensitive step?

Lead System Viability

• Could leads be generated and retained?

• Could traffic be re-engaged without re-paying Google?

Key Learnings

In Restricted Finance Niches, Funnel Design Is Mandatory

This is not an optimization layer — it is a compliance requirement.

Cloaking Is Not a Strategy, It’s a Liability

Short-lived success destroys learning, data, and accounts.

Non-Web Intermediaries Create Operational Breathing Room

Telegram allowed interaction, explanation, and capture without policy exposure.

Why This Matters

Most advertisers treat restrictions as obstacles to bypass.

This experiment treated them as design constraints.

By doing so, we proved that:

• Google Ads can be run in restricted financial categories,

• without cloaking,

• without burning accounts,

• if the funnel is engineered around enforcement realities.

What Comes After R&D Validation

Only after structural survivability is confirmed do you:

• evaluate lead quality,

• test incremental scale,

• expand messaging,

• and introduce budget increases.

Skipping this phase is why most finance advertisers fail repeatedly.

Final Takeaway

This was an R&D experiment in the financial niche, focused on operability, not performance.

The core insight is simple:

When direct ads are forbidden and cloaking is detectable, funnel architecture becomes the strategy.

By removing the website from the first interaction and using Telegram as a compliant intermediary, we built a system that could run ads and generate leads without fighting the platform.

That is the foundation every restricted-niche advertiser needs before thinking about scale.

Closing Note

This experiment reflects how we approach complex advertising problems.

We do not start with assumptions, templates, or recycled playbooks.

We start with constraints, and we design systems around them.

At Zero Penny, we continuously run controlled experiments across:

• Google Ads

• alternative acquisition channels

• analytics and tracking systems

• and restricted or high-friction niches

If you are exploring Google Ads—or any other advertising or analytics technology—and need non-obvious funnel structures, compliance-safe approaches, or experimental setups that go beyond standard agency thinking, you can reach out to us.

We don’t sell shortcuts.

We test ideas, document what survives, and build systems that are meant to last.
‍