Meta Ads

Nobody on Facebook or Instagram went looking for you. On Google Ads you are capturing demand that already exists; on Meta you are creating it, by interrupting someone well enough that they stop. That makes creative the biggest lever rather than keywords, and it usually means a longer path from first view to purchase.

More than most people expect, and as a steady supply rather than one shoot. Creative fatigue is real on Meta: the same ad shown to the same audience stops working within weeks. A small pipeline of new angles, hooks and formats tested regularly beats one expensive production that is tired by month two.

Because the platform counts view-through and click-through conversions within its own attribution window, using its own data, while your analytics and your back end count something different. Some gap is normal. The job is knowing how big your gap is and reporting against your actual orders, not pretending either number is the truth.

Enough for the testing to mean something, which usually means a few hundred pounds a month per audience you are serious about, plus the creative to fill it. Spreading a small budget across many audiences and many ads produces data too thin to act on, so it is better to test fewer things properly.

Yes, more than it used to. Browser tracking loses a meaningful share of events to privacy controls and blockers, and Meta optimises on what it can see. Sending conversions server side gives the bidding better data to work with, which generally shows up as lower cost per result rather than as a headline number.