Reach Quantity vs Reach Quality

“Everyone’s on Meta, so we can definitely reach our audience there.”

This statement, or one similar to it, is probably something you’ve heard from a client or someone in leadership if you work in paid media. While likely true, this doesn’t always mean that investing in Meta as your next paid media channel is the right move. I’ve heard this thinking quite a bit, Meta’s large reach in addition to its “powerful algorithm” can feel enticing to someone looking to increase reach by expanding into a new channel.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against advertising on Meta by any means, but this isn’t always the best approach.

Also, Meta is just an example here. You could replace Meta with broad YouTube targeting, or a display campaign with optimized audiences enabled.

The point I’m trying to argue is, just because a platform has a large reach and the promise of AI-driven targeting, doesn’t mean that’s what you’re going to get. Despite all of the excitement and flash of AI, I’ve found that the audience targeting capabilities of some of these platforms aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Throwing money at an interest based algorithm can lead to a lot of inefficient media spend, which hurts growth.

Instead of taking a more traditional approach and praying that the AI-algos will save my campaign, I like to find more niche channel expansion opportunities for clients when they’re looking to increase reach. This could take the form of specific Reddit communities (subreddits), YouTube channel placements, or even newsletter sponsorships.

While the reach for these tactics isn’t going to be as large, the likelihood that these ads are being put in front of the right people is much higher.

Have questions, considerations, or critiques? I’d love to hear them! If you’re reading this via email, just hit respond. Otherwise, you can find me on LinkedIn.