Solved: Targeting same group with 2 campaigns - Is this OK?

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out!

Happy to give you some initial thoughts on your question about testing instant forms against your landing page. It’s a really common query, and tbh, the way you're thinking of doing it – by running two seperate campaigns – is a path many people take. But it can cause more problems than it solves and often leads to wasted ad spend and confusing results. There's a much cleaner, more effective way to get the answers you're looking for, which will also set you up for better performance in the long run. Let's get into it.

We'll need to look at why your current plan is a problem...

Alright, so the first thing to tackle is the idea of running two identical campaigns aimed at the same audience. On the surface, it seems logical. One campaign for the instant form, one for the landing page. Simple, right? The issue is that you're essentially making your own campaigns compete against each other in the Meta ads auction. This is something we see a lot, and it's almost always a bad idea.

When you have two campaigns with the same targeting, you're creating what's called 'audience overlap'. Both of your campaigns are trying to show ads to the same pool of people. Meta's system isn't designed for this. It can get confused about which ad from which campaign to show to a specific person. The result? You end up bidding against yourself. This drives up your costs (your CPMs and CPCs) for no good reason. You're basically paying a premium to show your ads, simply because you've created your own internal competition. It's like having two of your own salespeople trying to sell the same thing to the same customer at the same time; it just makes things more expensive and chaotic.

More importantly, it completely invalidates your test. A proper A/B test needs to have a single variable. In your case, the variable is the destination (form vs. landing page). But by setting up two seperate campaigns, you introduce loads of other variables you can't control. The algorithm might decide to deliver one campaign at a different time of day, or to a slightly different pocket of people within your broader audience. Each campaign will have its own learning phase, its own budget delivery, its own unique auction dynamics. You'll never be able to say with 100% certainty that the difference in performance was because of the form vs the landing page, and not because of these other hidden factors. The data you get back will be unreliable at best, and it becomes a right pain to manage.

You'll end up looking at two sets of data, trying to figure out which one is the 'truth', when in reality, neither is giving you a clean answer. This is how budgets get burned without any real learnings to show for it. You asked if you should run them one after the other for a week each. That's slightly better as it avoids direct competition, but it's still not a true A/B test. Market conditions, seasonality, or even just random chance can mean that one week performs differently from the next. You're still not comparing apples with apples.

I'd say you need a proper testing structure...

So, how do you do it properly? The answer is to keep everything within a single campaign. A campaign is just a container for your objective. Inside that campaign, you use Ad Sets to control your targeting, budget, and placements. And inside each ad set, you have your ads. This structure is what you need to use for clean, effective testing.

Here’s the simplest way to set up your test:

Campaign:

-> Objective: Set this to 'Leads' or 'Conversions'. Dont ever use 'Awareness' or 'Reach' if you actually want people to do something. You'd be telling the algorithm to find you the cheapest people who are least likely to ever click or convert. You're literally paying to find non-customers. You must tell Meta what you actually want, which in your case, is a lead.

Ad Set A:

-> Targeting: Your chosen audience.
-> Ads: Your creatives, all pointing to the Instant Form.

Ad Set B:

-> Targeting: The exact same audience as Ad Set A.
-> Ads: The exact same creatives, all pointing to your Landing Page.

This is a classic A/B test setup. Now, to make it even better, you should turn on Campaign Budget Optimisation (CBO), now called Advantage Campaign Budget. What this does is it lets you set one budget at the campaign level, and then Meta's algorithm will automatically distribute that budget between your ad sets. It will intelligently spend more on the ad set that is performing better (i.e., getting you cheaper leads). So, not only are you running a clean test, you're also letting the system automatically optimise your spend towards the winner in real-time. It takes the guesswork out of it for you.

An even more streamlined way, which we often use, is to test within a single ad set. I remember one client wanting to test two different landing pages, and instead of creating multiple ad sets, we just created two different ads within the same ad set. Each ad pointed to a different page. The algorithm then split the budget between the ads. For your specific test, since one destination is an on-platform form and the other is an off-platform page, the two-ad-set approach is probably cleaner. It gives the algorithm a clearer signal for what to optimise for in each case.

The main thing here is you are isolating the variable. The campaign, the budget strategy (CBO), and the targeting are all identical. The only difference is the destination. After a few days, you'll have clear, reliable data showing you which approach works best for that specific audience.

You probably should think about what you're really optimising for...

This test between an instant form and a landing page brings up a much bigger, more important question: what defines a "good" lead for your business? This is where many advertisers go wrong. They chase the lowest Cost Per Lead (CPL) possible, assuming cheaper is always better.

Instant Forms will, in almost every single test I've ever seen, generate a lower CPL. It's a low-friction experience. The user stays on Facebook or Instagram, their details are often pre-filled, and it takes two taps to submit. It's easy. A landing page requires more effort. The user has to leave the app, wait for a page to load, read the copy, and manually type in their information. It's a higher-friction process. Because of this, you will almost certainly get more, and cheaper, leads from the Instant Form.

But are they better leads?

Often, the answer is no. The same low friction that makes it easy to sign up also means you get a lot of people who aren't that serious. They submitted the form on a whim. They might not even remember doing it an hour later. Your sales team then has to waste time chasing down these low-intent leads. They might be cheaper on the front end, but they are more expensive in terms of wasted time and effort on the back end.

Landing page leads, on the other hand, tend to be much higher quality. The person has made a conscious effort. They've invested their time to visit your site and learn more before giving you their details. They are more pre-qualified and more invested in what you offer. The CPL will be higher, but the conversion rate from lead to customer will likely be much better too.

This is where you need to look beyond the ad platform metrics. The real question isn't "How low can my CPL go?" but "How high a CPL can I afford to acquire a truly great customer?" To answer that, you need to understand your numbers. Specifically, your Customer Lifetime Value (LTV). Lets have a quick look at how to calculate it.

Let's say you have these numbers for your business:
-> Average Revenue Per Account (ARPA): What you make per customer, per month. Let's say it's £200.
-> Gross Margin %: Your profit margin. Let's say it's 70%.
-> Monthly Churn Rate: The percentage of customers you lose each month. Let's say it's 5%.

The calculation is: LTV = (ARPA * Gross Margin %) / Monthly Churn Rate

So, LTV = (£200 * 0.70) / 0.05 = £140 / 0.05 = £2,800.

Each customer is worth £2,800 in gross margin over their lifetime. A healthy LTV to Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC) ratio is often cited as 3:1. This means you can afford to spend up to £933 (£2,800 / 3) to acquire a single customer. If your sales process converts 1 in 10 qualified leads into a customer, you can afford to pay up to £93.30 for a single qualified lead from your landing page. Suddenly, a £20 CPL from a landing page doesn't look expensive compared to a £5 CPL from an instant form that never converts.

This is the maths that unlocks proper growth. It frees you from chasing cheap, low-quality leads and allows you to focus on acquiring customers who are actually valuable to your business. Your test should not just measure CPL; you need to track these leads all the way through to a sale to find out the true Cost Per Acquisition for each source.

You'll need a funnel that actually works...

Your test is also happening in a vacuum. To really make this work, you need to think about where this activity fits into your overall marketing funnel. Different audiences require different approaches. A cold audience who has never heard of you before might respond better to a low-friction instant form, while a warm audience that has already visited your website might be ready for the higher commitment of a landing page.

This is why we always build out campaigns based on funnel stages: Top of Funnel (ToFu), Middle of Funnel (MoFu), and Bottom of Funnel (BoFu).

ToFu - Prospecting the Cold:
This is where you're reaching people who don't know you. Your goal is to grab their attention and introduce them to the problem you solve. Here, you'd be using broad targeting, interest-based targeting, or lookalike audiences based on your existing customers.
-> For ToFu, an instant form might actually be a decent strategy. You're trying to get a foot in the door. However, the copy in your ad is critical. You must speak directly to their pain point. Don't sell your product; sell the solution to their nightmare. For example, instead of "Get our new project management software," you'd say "Tired of deadlines slipping and projects going over budget? See how teams like yours are finishing on time, every time."

MoFu - Engaging the Warm:
This is for people who have shown some interest. They've watched one of your videos, engaged with an ad, or visited your website but haven't converted yet. Here, you're building trust and demonstrating value. You'd retarget these people with case studies, testimonials, or different angles on your solution.
-> For MoFu, you could test both an instant form and a landing page. You might find that people who've watched a video are now ready to go to a landing page to get more detailed information.

BoFu - Closing the Hot:
This is for people who are close to converting. They've added a product to their cart, initiated checkout, or visited your pricing page. These are your hottest leads. The goal here is to get them over the line.
-> For BoFu, you should almost always be using a landing page. These people are highly invested. An instant form would feel cheap and out of place. You want to direct them to the exact page they need to complete their action, with a strong call to action and social proof to seal the deal.

Here's a typical audience prioritisation structure we would use. The further down the funnel an audience is, the better it will typically perform.

By structuring your account this way, your test of a form vs. a landing page becomes much more strategic. You're not just asking "which is better?", you're asking "which is better, for *this specific audience* at *this specific stage* of their journey?" This is how you get insights that actually help you scale your business, rather than just getting a simple, and potentially misleading, test result.

This is probably a lot to take in, but getting the structure and strategy right from the start saves so much time, money, and heartache down the line. We've seen it time and again with clients. For one B2B software client, we took them from getting a handful of expensive leads to generating over 4,600 registrations at just $2.38 each, simply by fixing their structure and optimising their funnel. For another, a medical SaaS company, we reduced their Cost Per Acquisition from a painful £100 down to just £7. This stuff really works when it's done properly.

I've detailed my main recommendations for you below:

It's not just about setting up an ad and hoping for the best. It's about understanding your audience, having a solid testing methodology, optimising your entire funnel, and knowing your numbers inside and out. It's a complex process with a lot of moving parts, and getting it wrong can be very expensive.

That's where professional expertise can make a huge difference. With years of experience and a deep understanding of what actually works, we can help you skip the costly trial-and-error phase and implement a strategy that drives real results from day one. We can provide insights you might not have thought of and take over the entire implementation and optimisation process for you, ensuring that every pound you spend is working to grow your business.

If you’d like to have a chat about how we could apply this kind of strategic thinking to your specific business, we offer a free, no-obligation initial consultation. We can review your current setup and give you some more tailored advice. Feel free to book a call if that sounds helpful.

Hope that helps!

Regards,

Team @ Lukas Holschuh