This is the information element should Happy sharing. But, for whatever reason, they don’t.
Why?
“it works!”
We repeatedly remind us of the effectiveness of various optimizations. Meta encourages turning on all advantages + creative enhancements as it improves results for other advertisers.
We should use Advantage+ audience to reduce the cost per result by 33% (Meta-based experiments).
That’s not to say I don’t believe these things are usually beneficial. The problem is a complete lack of transparency in our own results.
We don’t know how helpful (or to no avail) these optimizations will help (or not help) a specific campaign, ad set, or ad. We should pay for this.
Do you know? This is awful. This is completely unnecessary.
Solution
Not surprisingly, Meta is difficult to get advertisers to buy due to lack of transparency. “Believe in our words” is not particularly convincing.
There is a stupid solution. Here are a few breakdowns Meta can offer to help increase trust and belief in these optimizations:
1. Locating faults: Depending on when we arrived at the audience we requested and when Meta moved the group to view individual rows for results.
2. Advantage segmentation + creative enhancement: View separate lines for our original ad copy and creative results, as well as when applying specific advantages + creative enhancements.
What are the risks?
Is it really difficult? What are the risks?
certainly Some advertisers distort small sample size results that are said to reject these optimizations. But this is not a solid argument against this transparency.
If these enhancements are indeed beneficial in most cases (I have no doubt they are), then there is no loss to the meta.
Prove it! Otherwise, they will continue to work hard to convince advertisers to use or believe in many of the best practices Meta promotes.
