There was a time when I spent the majority of my budget on remarketing. I used a combination of general remarketing (all website visitors, email list, and post engagement) and micro remarketing (people who performed a specific action). I did this because it was the most cost effective way to reach those who are most likely to act on my ad.

But I don’t do this anymore, and based on my latest tests I don’t think that will change.

My Tests

Using sales campaigns with audience segments, I’m able to see that remarketing happens anyway when I’m using Advantage+ Audience or going broad. A solid 25% of my budget or more is spent on people who engaged with my website or bought from me before.

I saw very similar results when using Advantage+ Audience without suggestions, Advantage+ Audience with suggestions, and original audiences with custom audiences and Advantage Custom Audience turned on.

It’s almost like my targeting inputs didn’t matter. Remarketing was going to be a priority, regardless of whether I did.

If that’s the case, why would I create another ad set just to target these same people? It feels completely unnecessary. Creating extra, unnecessary ad sets is inefficient and can drive up costs.

It Happens Together Now

While remarketing can be effective, it’s rarely scaleable — unless you are gifted with an enormous remarketing audience. And if you’re going to reach those people anyway, why create a separate ad set to reach them?

By combining remarketing and prospecting into a single ad set (this is done automatically by using Advantage+ Audience or going broad), the algorithm can distribute between those groups in the most optimal way. If you create separate remarketing ad sets, you may otherwise exhaust the audience quickly.

Allowing the algorithm to handle this for you is much more efficient. This is why I don’t run ads specifically for remarketing audiences now.

How about you?