Question

I am running Meta ads with manual placement settings; on the other hand, the client is using automatic placements. Results are not consistent in my sales campaign. Want to know your experience if advantage+ placements and advantage+ audience are giving better results?

Answer 1

I’ve run campaigns both ways—manual placements vs. Meta’s Advantage+ placements and audiences—and here’s what I’ve consistently found:

Advantage+ Placements: Worth It (Most of the Time)

Meta’s algorithm is better than we give it credit for. When I switched to Advantage+ placements, the CPM dropped and reach expanded—especially on placements I wouldn’t have prioritized manually (like Marketplace, Stories, or even Reels).

• These lower-cost placements helped balance the overall ROAS.

• Manual placements sometimes narrow the delivery too much—leading to higher costs and fewer conversions.

Unless you have a very specific funnel or creative that only works in one format, Advantage+ tends to give better scale and efficiency.

Advantage+ Audience: Hit or Miss

Now for Advantage+ Audience (previously called broad targeting)—it’s been great for top-of-funnel in most cases, especially with strong creative.

• If your pixel has solid conversion data, Meta can do the heavy lifting.

• But for niche or high-ticket offers, custom/lookalike audiences often perform better.

Why You're Seeing Inconsistencies

If you’re using manual placements and the client is using Advantage+, your ad delivery and optimization paths are entirely different. That’s likely why you’re seeing inconsistent results, even if targeting overlaps.

My Take

Start testing with Advantage+ placements first—and if your data supports it, let Advantage+ audience run alongside for broad discovery. Then layer in exclusions or custom segments as you scale.