I’m glad you found this helpful, Abbey.

I wouldn’t say that targeting existing customers is necessarily a waste of money. While the assumption might be that your email would have converted them anyway, that’s not necessarily the case. Understand that the algorithm will always prioritize getting you as many conversions as possible. That will typically include a mix of current subscribers and customers.

I’m not sure why you’d still pay to reach current customers if you already excluded them. The first thing I’d do is check to see how you defined your current customers and engaged audience within audience segments. Then look at how you defined the existing customers you were excluding.

Finally, I’d look at the distribution between click through and view through conversions. If you have a very high percentage of view-through conversions, I would indeed consider that problematic. If that’s the case, you can remove 1-day view from your attribution setting in the ad set. Otherwise, if people are clicking the ad and converting, existing customers or not, I’d say your ad was the primary reason for the conversion.

Do you think this is something that will come down over time? It's such a waste of money to target people that are already subscribers or repeat purchasers (that's what we have email and text marketing for!), but does Meta just go where it thinks it can record the most conversions for its platform?

So that means an ad like the one Plamen Todorov tells about, should be specifically on with a retargeting only audience?, but if we have an ad that is for both (remarketing and prospecting), we should keep it broad and simple?

Excellent point, I've found that also on clients campaigns. And real estate gets even less targeted.

Hi, Sharmi. Were you using Advantage+ Audience or original audiences? If Advantage+ Audience, your gender selection is only a suggestion.

But, that takes us to the next question. What was your performance goal in the ad set? If it was Maximize Conversions, it surprises me that this would happen. If it was something top of the funnel, like Post Engagement, Link Clicks, Landing Page Views, or ThruPlay, that’s unfortunately not a surprise.

Here’s an example of how it should work, assuming you optimize for conversions: https://www.jonloomer.com/qvt/example-of-how-broad-targeting-works/

There can be if you have specific goals for multiple products. In that case, simply creating ads for each product within a single campaign may not be enough.

There’s context with that statement, of course! The beauty is that it is automatically distributed to both remarketing and prospecting without having to create separate ad sets.

Exactly the same mess I experienced with Meta.

Why getting old ages through adv+ audience when added to my custom audience.

After Meta promised not to ever go beyond my targeting?

You need to know what you're doing in Meta ad.

I can`t agree with the following:

And that’s kind of the beauty of how Meta is distributing my budget

I guess "beauty" should be in quotes, because it`s ugly as..

Meta has made a huge mess with its targeting, resulting in lower results in almost every niche.

A few days ago I saw an ad, saying "You have products in your cart, go ahead and finish your order", from a website I`ve never seen or interacted before…

Cheers!

For example, I manage ads for a business that offers Cyber Security courses, targeting primarily 20-30-year-olds. While running an ADV+ campaign, we initially saw promising results. However, as the campaign progressed, most of the leads we received were from individuals over 50, which was irrelevant to our target demographic and resulted in wasted budget. Despite this, the algorithm perceived these results as successful and redirected 70%-80% of our budget towards the older audience.

If your audience isn't strictly age-specific, ADV+ campaigns should work fine. However, if age is a critical factor, you'll likely need to use Original Audiences to avoid wasting money on irrelevant demographics.