Solved: Meta Ads or Google Ads: Which is easier to learn?

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out!

Happy to give you some initial thoughts on your question. It's a common one, and tbh most people get stuck on it, often for the wrong reasons. They ask "which is easier?" or "which is cheaper?" when the real question, the one that actually gets results, is completely different.

The truth is, asking whether to use Google or Meta is like a builder asking whether they should use a hammer or a saw. Both are brilliant tools, but you'd look a bit daft trying to cut a plank of wood with a hammer. It all depends on the job you're trying to do. And in advertising, the job is always about finding customers.

So, instead of focusing on the tool, let's focus on the customer. Where are they, and what's going through their head when they might need you? That's the only thing that matters, and it's what will tell us which platform to pick.

We'll need to look at your customer's mindset...

This is the absolute core of it. Everything else is just details. You have to understand the fundamental difference between the two platforms, and it all comes down to the user's intent.

Google Ads is about Capturing Demand.

Think about it. When someone goes to Google, they have a problem and they are actively, consciously looking for a solution. Right now. They are typing things like "emergency electrician near me", "best accounting software for small business", or "divorce lawyer in Manchester". They have their wallet half-out already. They are raising their hand and shouting "I need help!".

This is what we call 'search intent'. It's incredibly powerful. You don't have to convince them they have a problem; they already know they do. You just have to convince them that you are the best person to solve it. It's the digital equivalent of having a shop on the busiest high street in town. People are walking past who are already looking to buy. Your job is to have the most appealing shop window.

So, if you sell a service or product that people search for when they have an urgent or specific need, Google Ads is almost always the place to start. We're running a campaign for an HVAC company at the moment. Nobody casually browses for boiler repair services on a Sunday afternoon for fun. They search for it when their heating breaks down in the middle of winter. That's pure, raw demand, and Google is the place to capture it.

Meta Ads is about Creating Demand.

Now, think about when you're on Facebook or Instagram. You're not there to solve a problem. You're there to see what your cousin's been up to, look at pictures of dogs, or argue with a stranger about politics. You are in a passive, entertainment-focused mindset. You are not looking to buy anything.

An ad on Meta is an interruption. It has to be good enough to stop your thumb from scrolling. It has to create the demand out of thin air. It has to introduce a problem the user didn't even know they had, or present a desire they didn't know they wanted to fulfill. It's like a billboard on the motorway or an ad in a glossy magazine.

This is perfect for products or services that are visually appealing, novel, or solve a problem people don't actively search for. Think about a new fashion brand, a unique subscription box, an online course for a new skill, or a B2B software that solves a workflow issue people just assume they have to live with. You're not capturing existing intent; you're creating it. For one subscription box client, we saw a 1000% Return On Ad Spend on Meta because we could show off the beautiful products and create that feeling of "ooh, I want that treat for myself". They would never have searched for "monthly surprise gift box" on Google.

To put it simply, you can decide which platform to test first with one simple question.

I'd say you need to define your customer's nightmare...

Before you spend a single pound on ads, you need to go deeper than just demographics. Forget "males aged 25-40 who like football". That's useless. It leads to generic ads that speak to no one. Your true Ideal Customer Profile (ICP) isn't a demographic; it's a problem state. It's a nightmare.

You need to become an obsessive expert in their specific, urgent, and expensive problem. The thing that keeps them up at night. The thing that's threatening their career or their peace of mind.

Let's take an example. Say you sell a B2B SaaS product for financial reporting. Your ICP isn't "CFOs in companies with 50-200 employees". That's boring and tells you nothing.

Your ICP's nightmare is: "It's the end of the quarter. The board meeting is in 48 hours. I've just spent two days manually exporting data from three different systems into a massive, fragile Excel spreadsheet. I'm terrified there's a VLOOKUP error somewhere that I've missed, and the CEO is going to tear my projections apart in front of everyone. I look incompetent, and my team is burned out from the late nights."

See the difference? That's a nightmare. It's full of emotion: fear, frustration, anxiety. Now you have something to work with. Now you can write ads that actually connect.

Your ad on Google could target the keyword "automated financial reporting software" and the headline could be "Stop Wasting Days on Spreadsheets. Error-Free Board Reports in Minutes." You're catching them right at the moment of pain when they're searching for a painkiller.

Your ad on LinkedIn (a platform for B2B markering) could show a picture of a stressed-out executive staring at a monstrous spreadsheet. The copy could start with: "Another late night before the board meeting? Your financial reporting process is broken." You're reminding them of a recurring nightmare they've just accepted as normal, and showing them there's a better way.

If you don't do this work first, you have no business running ads. You'll just be shouting into the void. Nail the nightmare, and your targeting and messaging will write themselves. You'll know exactly what keywords they're searching for on Google, and you'll know exactly what emotional hooks will stop their scroll on Meta.

You probably should focus on your offer first...

Here's the most common reason campaigns fail, and it has nothing to do with the platform, the targeting, or the ad copy. It's the offer. The thing you're actually asking people to do when they click.

Most beginners make a fatal mistake: they ask for the sale (or the sales meeting) way too soon. The "Request a Demo" button is probably the worst offender in B2B. It's arrogant. It assumes your prospect, who has never heard of you before, is willing to give up 30 minutes of their valuable time to be sold to. It's a high-friction, low-value request that screams "I'm a vendor, and I want your money."

Your offer's only job is to provide a moment of undeniable value. An "aha!" moment. It needs to solve a small part of their problem for free, to earn you the right to solve the whole thing for money. You have to give value before you can ever hope to get it back.

The best offers are what we call "value-first". They de-risk the decision for the customer and give them an easy win. I remember one client in the B2B environmental controls sector who was struggling to get leads. By helping them shift their strategy towards a more value-first offer, we managed to reduce their cost per lead by 84%. Why? Because the new approach gave instant, tangible value. The old one just asked for their time.

Your offer has to match the platform, too. On Google, where intent is high, a more direct offer like "Get an Instant Quote" or "Start Free Trial" can work because the person is already problem-aware. On Meta, where you're interrupting them, a lower-commitment offer like "Download the Free Guide" or "Take the Quiz" is often better. You're trying to start a conversation, not close a deal on the first date.

Fix your offer before you even think about your ads. A great offer with mediocre ads will always beat mediocre offer with great ads. Always.

You'll need to understand the real costs...

This brings us to the "better results" part of your question. "Better" is subjective. Is a £2 lead that never converts better than a £50 lead that turns into a £10,000 customer? Of course not. But many beginners get obsessed with low-cost vanity metrics like Cost Per Click (CPC) or Cost Per Lead (CPL) without understanding the bigger picture.

The costs will vary wildly based on your industry, your targeting, your offer, and the country you're in. But let's look at some very rough ballpark figures. In developed countries like the UK or US, a click might cost you between £0.50 and £1.50 on Meta for many niches. A decent landing page might convert 10-30% of that traffic into a lead (like an email signup). So, your Cost Per Lead could be anywhere from £1.60 (£0.50 / 30%) to £15 (£1.50 / 10%). On Google Search, those costs can be much, much higher for competitive commercial keywords, sometimes £10, £20, or even £50+ per click.

Here's a little calculator to help you get a feel for how these numbers interact. Play around with it and see how small changes in click cost or conversion rate can massively impact your lead cost.

But here is the real secret that separates amateurs from professionals. The goal isn't to get the lowest CPL possible. The goal is to be able to afford the highest CPL possible to acquire the best customers. The way you figure that out is by calculating your Customer Lifetime Value (LTV).

LTV tells you what a customer is actually worth to your business in profit over their entire relationship with you. Once you know this number, everything changes. You're no longer guessing. You're making data-driven decisions.

The basic formula looks like this:

LTV = (Average Revenue Per Customer Per Month * Gross Margin %) / Monthly Churn Rate %

Let's say you run a subscription box that costs £50/month. Your gross margin (after cost of goods) is 70%. And on average, you lose 5% of your customers each month (that's your churn).

LTV = (£50 * 0.70) / 0.05 = £35 / 0.05 = £700.

Each customer you acquire is worth £700 in gross profit to your business. A healthy business model often aims for a 3:1 LTV to Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) ratio. This means you can afford to spend up to £233 (£700 / 3) to acquire a single new customer. Suddenly, a £15 cost per purchase on Facebook doesn't seem expensive anymore. It looks like an absolute bargain. It looks like a money-printing machine.

This is the math that unlocks scale. Use the calculator below to figure out your own numbers. It will be the most important calculation you do for your business.

This is the main advice I have for you:

So, to answer your original question - "which is easier and which gives better results?" - you can probably see now why it's the wrong way to think. "Easier" doesn't matter if it doesn't work. "Better results" depends entirely on your business model, not the platform.

Here's a summary of the approach I'd recommend you take instead. It's a strategic framework rather than a simple choice.

As you can see, the platform choice is only one step in a much bigger process. Steps 1, 2, and 4 are actually far more important. If you get those right, you'll likely see success on whichever platform you choose. If you get them wrong, no amount of fiddling with campaign settings will save you.

This all probably sounds like a lot, and honestly, it is. There's a reason there's a whole industry around this stuff. It takes time and experience to get right, and making mistakes can be an expensive way to learn. You can waste a lot of money very quickly if you don't have a solid strategy in place from day one.

Working with an expert can help you skip the painful (and costly) learning phase. We can help you define that customer nightmare, craft an irresistible offer, build out the campaigns based on years of experience, and help you understand your numbers so you can scale predictably.

If you'd like to chat through your specific business and get a more tailored plan, we offer a free, no-obligation initial consultation. We can take a look at what you're planning and give you some honest feedback. It's often the most valuable 20 minutes a new advertiser can spend.

Hope this helps give you a better framework for thinking about it all!

Regards,

Team @ Lukas Holschuh