Subscribe Now: Apple Podcasts | Spotify
If you are running Meta™ Ads and feeling frustrated with the results, there is a good chance the issue is not something deeply technical. More often, it is one of a handful of simple mistakes that quietly waste your ad spend and make it look like ads “do not work”.
In this post, I want to walk you through the 3 mistakes I see coaches, consultants and course creators making on a regular basis. These are not complicated platform tricks. They are the fundamentals. And when you fix them, your campaigns usually become much easier to understand and improve.
1. Choosing the wrong campaign objective
This is the first mistake, and it matters more than most people realise. Meta™ is built to give you more of the result you ask for. That means your campaign objective is not just a setting. It tells the platform what success looks like.
If you want leads, you need a Leads campaign or a Conversions campaign optimised for the relevant opt-in event. If instead you set the campaign to Traffic or Website Clicks, Meta™ will go and find people who click links. That sounds helpful, but people who click are not necessarily the same people who hand over their name and email.
The same thing applies when you are promoting content. If your goal is to get people to read a blog post or listen to a podcast episode, running an Engagement campaign is usually the wrong fit because Meta™ will optimise for people who like and comment on the ad itself, not for people who click through to your content.
This is why objective choice matters so much. If you tell Meta™ to optimise for the wrong thing, it will often do exactly that. The result is that you spend money and end up disappointed, not because the platform is broken, but because the goal you gave it did not match the result you actually wanted.
2. Obsessing over targeting instead of focusing on the ad itself
The second mistake is one I see all the time, especially with business owners who have been running ads for a while. They spend a huge amount of time trying to perfect their targeting. They tweak interests. They build lookalikes. They second guess every audience decision.
In 2026, that is rarely where your results are won or lost. Meta™ often expands well beyond the interests or audiences you enter, which means those settings are now much more of a suggestion than a strict boundary. Lookalikes can still work in some situations, but obsessing over them is usually not the best use of your time.
What is doing the heavy lifting now is your creative and ad copy. The hook you choose, the pain point you speak to, the person you are clearly writing for and the promise you make are all strong signals to Meta™ about who should see your ad. They are also what make the right person stop scrolling and take action.
This is a really important shift. When your copy is specific, two things happen. First, the right people self-select and engage with your ad. Second, Meta™ learns from that engagement and gets better at finding more people like them. That is why a sharper message outperforms hours spent fiddling with audience settings every time.
If you genuinely need to restrict your targeting for a practical reason, there are ways to do it, including using Value Rules. But that should be the exception, not the default. In most cases, you will get far better results by spending that extra hour tightening your messaging instead.
3. Not testing boldly enough and looking in the wrong place when results are weak
The third mistake is really two connected problems. The first is not testing enough. The second is assuming the ad is always the problem when results are not where you want them to be.
Let us start with testing. When an ad is underperforming, many people make tiny tweaks. They change one word. They adjust a button colour. They shift something small and hope that will turn the campaign around. In practice, small tweaks rarely rescue a weak ad. What tends to work better is a genuinely new direction. That could mean:
- A different creative format.
- A new angle.
- A different pain point.
- A fresh entry point into the conversation.
There is no secret campaign structure that can make weak creative suddenly perform. Better results usually come from a willingness to test more boldly and keep testing until you find what resonates.
But before you blame the ad, you need to check that the problem actually sits with the ad. This is where many business owners look in the wrong place. Imagine you are sending traffic to an opt-in page and your cost per lead looks terrible. Your first reaction might be to assume the ad is weak. But what if the ad is doing its job and getting people to click, and the real issue is that your landing page is not converting.
That is why you need to look at both sides of the system:
- What is your click-through rate from the ad.
- What is happening on the page after the click.
If people are arriving but not opting in, the landing page is likely the first thing to fix. Even moving an opt-in page from a 20% conversion rate to 30% can make a very significant difference to your overall cost per lead in your ads. The ad and the page work together. You cannot optimise one in isolation and expect the whole funnel to improve.
Final thoughts
If you want better Meta™ Ads results, start with the fundamentals. Make sure your objective matches the action you actually want. Stop pouring hours into targeting tweaks that no longer carry the same weight they used to. Put more effort into your messaging and creative. And when results are weak, diagnose carefully before deciding where the problem sits.
There is no magic to running ads. There never has been. It comes back to understanding how the platform works, getting your foundations right and being willing to test in meaningful ways. Most of the time, that is what moves the needle.
I would love to hear your thoughts...