Cross-channel creative grid

Admaxxer is a DTC analytics platform with built-in Meta + Google ad ops. The same creative — say, a 15-second product demo — can be a winner on Meta and a loser on Google for completely rational reasons. The short answer: Meta measures *social response* (CTR, engagement, creative fatigue); Google measures *intent match* (Quality Score, expected CTR at query); and a creative that performs on one but not the other tells you something specific about why. ## TL;DR - Meta signal = social proof, scroll-stop, fatigue curve (best on UGC-style and demo video) - Google signal = intent match, keyword fit, landing page relevance (best on product-forward creative) - A creative that wins Meta but flops Google usually means targeting mismatch, not creative quality - A creative that wins Google but flops Meta usually means it's too literal/direct-response for social feed - Use the Admaxxer [creative grid](/docs/creative-grid) to see cross-platform performance on the same asset ## What each platform measures ### Meta: social response Meta's algorithm is tuned for scroll-stop, engagement, and fatigue. Signals that Meta weights: - First-second view rate (does the creative stop the scroll?) - 25%, 50%, 75% completion (video holding power) - CTR and post-engagement (comments, shares, saves) - Creative fatigue (same user seeing the ad >5 times) - Relevance score (post-launch quality signal) Creatives that win on Meta: UGC testimonials, before/after transformations, punchy first-3-seconds hooks, culturally-relevant humor. Creatives that flop: static product shots without context, long product descriptions, anything that requires >3 seconds to "get." ### Google: intent match Google Search algorithm weights: - Keyword-to-ad relevance (does the ad match the query?) - Landing page relevance (does the page deliver what the ad promises?) - Expected CTR at that query (will users click vs. competitors?) - Ad Strength score (for Responsive Search Ads) Creatives that win on Google: product-forward images with clear USP in headline, price or offer in description, specific benefit in extension. Creatives that flop: vague lifestyle photography, emotional ads without concrete product mention, UGC-style creative (lacks the clarity Google Search users expect). ### TikTok: native-format response TikTok is closer to Meta than Google in that it measures scroll-stop and completion, but weights native format heavily — creative that looks like an ad gets penalised. See the [TikTok integration](/docs/tiktok) docs when that connector ships. ## Diagnostic steps ### Step 1: Pull the cross-channel creative grid In the Admaxxer dashboard, navigate to [Creatives → Cross-channel grid](/docs/creative-grid). Each creative shows its Meta CPA, Google CPA, and the ratio. Look for: - Both low (winner — double down) - Meta low, Google high (investigate Google targeting) - Google low, Meta high (investigate Meta placement or hook) - Both high (kill) ### Step 2: Check ratio vs. baseline A creative with Meta CPA of $32 and Google CPA of $45 isn't necessarily failing Google — Google baseline CPAs are often 30–50% higher than Meta for similar products because Search traffic is bottom-funnel and Meta is mixed. Compare to the account-level baseline for each platform. ### Step 3: Inspect the specific mismatch For a "Meta wins, Google loses" creative: - Is the Google ad text too close to Meta ad copy? Rewrite for query intent. - Is the landing page fit wrong? Google rewards pages that match the ad headline verbatim. - Is the keyword set too broad? Narrow to bottom-funnel queries. For "Google wins, Meta loses": - Is the Meta hook strong enough? First 3 seconds must stop scroll. - Is the creative format wrong (static vs. video)? Meta Feed favors video; Stories favors 9:16. - Is the placement limiting reach? Test Advantage+ placements. ### Step 4: Test same creative across placements Run the winning Meta creative as a Google Display asset (not Search — different intent). If it performs on Display, the creative itself is good but doesn't match Search intent. If it flops on Display too, the creative has a deeper targeting or positioning issue. ### Step 5: Check the Admaxxer MMM attribution The [MMM contribution](/docs/mmm) model decomposes channel attribution independently. If a creative's MER-level contribution is positive while platform ROAS says it's losing, the creative is doing halo work that shows up in blended MER but not platform-attributed ROAS. ## Divergence patterns Three common patterns and their diagnoses: **Pattern 1: Meta CPA $30, Google CPA $75, same creative** Hypothesis: the creative is social-native (UGC, humor, story-driven) and doesn't match Search intent. Google Search users want answers, not vibes. Fix: rewrite Google ad copy to be query-matched; move the Meta creative to Google Display with demographic targeting instead. **Pattern 2: Meta CPA $85, Google CPA $35, same creative** Hypothesis: the creative is product-forward and clinical — great for intent-matched Search but boring in a social feed. Fix: repurpose the product-forward creative as a Meta Collection ad or Catalog Shopping ad where "boring but clear" works. Don't force it into Feed video slots. **Pattern 3: Meta CPA $45, Google CPA $45, both near target** Hypothesis: creative is versatile. Double down with more budget on the lower-fatigue channel first. Test slight variations on each channel to find the ceiling. The [Admaxxer Claude agent](/docs/ai-agent) can call `query_metrics` with a creative-level breakdown and flag these patterns automatically. ## Common mistakes Three mistakes we see: 1. **Using identical creative assets on Meta and Google Search.** Search users are in a different mindset. A Feed-optimized hook will often fail in a Search expanded-text slot. Always create platform-specific variants. 2. **Ignoring landing page fit per platform.** Google checks for ad-to-landing-page keyword relevance; a Meta-optimised landing page (long, story-driven) often fails Google's Quality Score. 3. **Comparing CPA without normalising for intent.** A $60 Google Search CPA for "buy organic protein powder" is not the same as a $60 Meta prospecting CPA. Search is closer to conversion; Meta spend has more pre-click demand-generation work. See [Blended MER vs ROAS](/guides/blended-mer-vs-roas) for why creative-level CPA alone doesn't tell the full story — some creatives drive Meta awareness that Google harvests. ## FAQs **Should the same creative run on every platform?** No. Platform-specific variants outperform universal creatives by 20–40% on CPA. Cut each variant for the native format and intent. **How do I know if a creative is fatiguing on Meta?** Frequency >4 with a CTR drop of >20% from peak. The Admaxxer [creative grid](/docs/creative-grid) shows fatigue score per creative. **What about TikTok and YouTube?** TikTok follows Meta-like dynamics (social, scroll-stop). YouTube is mixed — pre-roll is Meta-like, search is Google-like. Treat each placement separately. **Can I use AI to generate platform-specific variants?** Yes — the Admaxxer [Claude agent](/docs/ai-agent) can draft platform-specific copy given a base creative brief. It's a starting point, not a final asset. **How does the creative grid integrate with my media mix?** The Admaxxer grid pulls spend and conversion data from Meta and Google connectors, joins on creative fingerprint (hash of image/video + copy), and surfaces cross-platform performance in one view. Works best when creatives have consistent naming across platforms.