[ErinKennedy]

Hey everyone!

I thought it would be useful to start a discussion about Meta Ads and share some real experiences. A lot of us use Facebook and Instagram ads, but the results can be very different depending on the business, audience, budget, and even the type of creative we use.

Sometimes an ad performs amazingly well, and other times the same strategy barely gets any results. So I’d love to hear what’s actually working for everyone right now.

What Are You Using Meta Ads For?​

There are so many different ways to use Meta Ads.

Some people are running ads for ecommerce products, while others are promoting local businesses, services, apps, courses, affiliate offers, or simply trying to generate leads and WhatsApp enquiries.

Personally, I think it makes more sense to compare results with businesses that have similar goals. Getting cheap clicks might look great, but if those clicks don't turn into customers, they don't really help much.

That's why I'm curious about what goals everyone here is focusing on.

What Kind of Targeting Is Working for You?​

Audience targeting is something I find particularly interesting.

Some advertisers still prefer using detailed interests and demographics, while others are getting better results by keeping the audience broad and allowing Meta's algorithm to find potential customers.

I've seen people have success with both approaches.

It seems like there isn't one magic targeting setup that works for everyone. Sometimes a simple broad audience can outperform a highly detailed one, while in another campaign, specific targeting can make a big difference.

I'd be interested to know what you're currently testing.

Creative Seems to Make a Huge Difference​

One thing that seems to be consistently important is the ad creative.

You can spend a lot of time choosing the audience and setting up the campaign, but if the actual ad doesn't grab attention, people will simply keep scrolling.

Short videos, customer testimonials, product demonstrations, before-and-after content, problem-and-solution videos, and simple promotional creatives can all work depending on the audience.

What's interesting is that the creative we personally like isn't always the one that performs best.

Sometimes a very simple video ends up beating a professionally designed advertisement.

Are You Testing Different Creatives?​

I've started to think of creative testing as something that should happen regularly rather than just once.

For example, you might have one ad explaining the benefits of a product, another showing how it works, and another focusing on a customer problem.

Then you can see which message people actually respond to.

Even small changes can sometimes make a noticeable difference. A different opening line, image, video angle, headline, or call-to-action can completely change the performance.

I'd love to hear which type of creative is currently giving you the best results.

Don't Make Changes Too Quickly​

One mistake I think many advertisers make is checking the Ads Manager every few hours and immediately changing things when the numbers aren't looking good.

I've definitely seen campaigns fluctuate.

One day can look great, the next day can be average, and then things can improve again.

If we keep changing the audience, budget, creative, and campaign structure every time the results move slightly, it becomes really difficult to understand what's actually working.

Giving a campaign enough time to collect useful data can make the decision-making process much easier.

Scaling Is a Different Challenge​

Getting good results with a small budget feels great.

But then comes the next question: Can you spend more without destroying the results?

That's where scaling gets interesting.

A campaign might perform really well at a certain budget, but increasing the spend too quickly can sometimes change the performance.

So I'm curious about how others approach scaling.

Do you increase the budget gradually? Duplicate campaigns? Introduce new creatives? Expand the audience?

There are plenty of different approaches, and I'd be interested to hear what has worked for others.

Which Metrics Do You Actually Watch?​

Meta gives us a huge amount of data.

CTR, CPC, CPM, reach, frequency, conversions, cost per result, ROAS and plenty of other numbers are available.

But I think it's easy to get distracted by numbers that don't directly affect the business.

For example, getting inexpensive clicks sounds great, but those clicks don't mean much if nobody buys anything.

For lead generation, the same thing applies. Ten cheap leads aren't necessarily better than five expensive leads if those five leads are much more likely to become customers.

At the end of the day, the business result matters most.

Cheap Leads Aren't Always Better Leads​

This is something worth discussing because I think it happens quite often.

Imagine Campaign A gives you leads for ₹30 each, while Campaign B gives you leads for ₹80 each.

At first, Campaign A looks like the clear winner.

But what if most of Campaign A's leads aren't serious buyers, while Campaign B produces customers who actually purchase?

Suddenly, the more expensive leads might be much more valuable.

So rather than looking only at the cost per lead, it can be useful to track what happens after the lead comes in.

That's where you get a much clearer picture of whether the campaign is actually working.

Don't Forget About Retargeting​

Not everyone is going to buy the first time they see your ad.

Someone might visit your website, watch your video, check your Instagram page, or add something to their cart and then leave.

Retargeting can be useful for reaching those people again.

The message can also be different from the original advertisement.

Instead of introducing the product again, you could focus on reviews, benefits, common questions, offers, or reasons why the customer should take the next step.

Sometimes people simply need another reminder before making a decision.

Your Landing Page Matters Too​

Another thing I've noticed is that advertisers sometimes focus entirely on the Meta campaign and forget about what happens after someone clicks the ad.

You can have a great advertisement, but if the landing page takes forever to load or doesn't clearly explain the offer, people may leave.

The landing page should match the promise made in the advertisement.

If the ad says one thing and the landing page feels completely different, it can create confusion and reduce trust.

So if an ad isn't converting, it may be worth looking beyond Ads Manager and checking the entire customer journey.

What Didn't Work for You?​

I think failures are just as useful as successful campaigns.

If you tried a particular audience, creative, campaign structure, or strategy and it completely failed, sharing that experience could actually help someone else avoid making the same mistake.

Not every campaign is going to be a winner.

Sometimes the best lessons come from the campaigns where we spent money and wondered, "What exactly went wrong here?"

Those experiences are worth discussing too.

Let's Share Some Real Experiences​

Rather than keeping this discussion limited to generic Meta Ads tips, it would be great to hear some actual experiences from people running campaigns.

What type of business are you advertising?

What objective are you using?

Are you getting better results from broad or detailed targeting?

Which creatives are working best?

What kind of budget are you working with?

And most importantly, are your campaigns actually bringing in profitable customers?

Feel free to share both your wins and your failures.

I'm sure there are plenty of people here experimenting with Meta Ads right now, and comparing real experiences could be much more useful than simply reading another generic “how to run Facebook ads” guide.

What’s working for you with Meta Ads right now?

 

[PeggyGates]

I’ve actually had better results after moving away from overly detailed targeting. For one of my campaigns, I started with several interests and narrowed the audience quite heavily. The results were okay, but once I tested a broader audience, Meta found better-quality leads. The creative seemed to make a bigger difference than the targeting.

 

[LoriMoore]

The creative point is so true. We spent quite a bit of time making a polished video ad, but a simple phone-recorded video explaining the product performed much better. I think people respond more to content that feels authentic instead of something that looks too much like an advertisement.

 

[kwolfe555]

For lead generation, I’ve stopped judging campaigns purely by CPL. We had one campaign producing leads at around ₹40, while another was around ₹90. Initially, the ₹40 campaign looked fantastic, but the sales team found that most of those leads weren't serious. The ₹90 campaign ended up generating more actual customers.

 

[bsawyer581]

One thing that helped me was testing different hooks instead of constantly changing the entire ad. Sometimes the video itself was fine, but the first few seconds weren't interesting enough. Changing the opening line made a surprisingly big difference.

 

[RichardDillon47]

I completely agree about making changes too quickly. I used to check Ads Manager multiple times a day and panic whenever the numbers moved in the wrong direction. These days I try to give campaigns enough time and look at trends instead of reacting to every small fluctuation.

 

[MargaretRichards]

Retargeting has been one of the most useful parts of our setup. People who already visited the website or interacted with our Instagram page are much easier to convince than completely cold audiences. We usually use testimonials and product-specific messaging for those people rather than showing them the same introductory ad again.

 

[ErinKennedy]

One thing that helped me was testing different hooks instead of constantly changing the entire ad. Sometimes the video itself was fine, but the first few seconds weren't interesting enough. Changing the opening line made a surprisingly big difference.

Good point about the first few seconds. I've noticed that too. Sometimes there's nothing wrong with the actual offer or video, but the opening doesn't give people enough reason to keep watching. Testing different hooks seems much smarter than rebuilding the whole ad every time.

Retargeting has been one of the most useful parts of our setup. People who already visited the website or interacted with our Instagram page are much easier to convince than completely cold audiences. We usually use testimonials and product-specific messaging for those people rather than showing them the same introductory ad again.

Retargeting can definitely be underrated. Someone who has already visited the site or interacted with the brand is in a completely different position from someone seeing the business for the first time. Changing the message for that audience makes a lot of sense.

I completely agree about making changes too quickly. I used to check Ads Manager multiple times a day and panic whenever the numbers moved in the wrong direction. These days I try to give campaigns enough time and look at trends instead of reacting to every small fluctuation.

Same here. It's so easy to see one bad day and assume the campaign is going downhill. Looking at the overall trend makes much more sense than constantly reacting to every little change in Ads Manager.

I’ve actually had better results after moving away from overly detailed targeting. For one of my campaigns, I started with several interests and narrowed the audience quite heavily. The results were okay, but once I tested a broader audience, Meta found better-quality leads. The creative seemed to make a bigger difference than the targeting.

That's really interesting. I've been wondering how much detailed targeting still matters when the creative is strong. Your experience with broad audiences getting better-quality leads definitely makes me want to test that more instead of assuming narrower is always better.