Video vs Graphic in Facebook Ads – Which do you think would work better?
One of the most effective tools in Facebook that marketers and businesses can make use of to generate massive profits fast is the use of Facebook ads, where you create demographic, targeted ad campaigns.
Facebook advertising is getting increasingly popular with marketers and businesses primarily due to the fact that they can drive massive volumes of awareness, engagement and traffic to their sites and it’s been a proven fact that retargeting ads is very effective. There are so many retargeting options now, such as video viewers, page engagers, website visitors and email list subscribers, to name a few.
Facebook is continuing to make further updates to strengthen the effectiveness of its paid ads.
When it comes to paying for engagement, hands down, the answer is video of any type.Click To Tweet This could be a Facebook live, a landscape video or a square video. Typically, these are $.01 – $.03/view.
Many people would believe that video doesn’t work for ads that have the goal of ‘conversion.’ My question is, “have you tested it?” And have you tested it lately?Have you tested ads with a square video?Click To Tweet In this blog post, I’m going to show you specific case studies on using square video for conversion.
I have tested ads using regular video vs graphics time and again. By far, the graphics for conversion were the better option. The results only changed when I implemented square video.
Case Study #1: Ad – Link clicks for a contest
|Reach||Link Clicks||Av Cost Per|
The square video had a $223 ads spend. The graphic had a $403 ad spend.
The reach for the square video far exceeded the graphic. But our goal is link clicks, so we need to look at CPC. The CPC (cost per click) was over $1 less with the video. This video won the ad set test hands down with both reach and clicks!
Case Study #2: Ad – Email list builder
|Reach||Leads||Av Cost Per Conversion|
Total ad spend on the video was $125. The graphic was $135. Once again, the video did reach a larger audience.
This is specifically a conversion goal. The other numbers were very close. The average cost per conversion is only $.42 difference. It is enough of a difference to wonder, but the longer this ad is run, the more the video cost dropped.
I would actually give this more time until over 5,000 reach at least. Also, the graphic was used on a previous ad and had engagement on it. This definitely could skew the numbers.
Case Study #3: Ad – Conversion to a webinar registration
We tested a video and against a graphic. Goal was conversion to enter their name and email for the webinar.
Video (Square) – $4.39/sign-up
Graphic – $7.49/sign-up
That’s a $3.10 savings per lead! BIG difference. Once again, the video did reach more.
What do these case studies tell us?Testing graphics vs square video is well worth it!Click To Tweet It can go either way with if a video or graphic converts better. I do know from my tests that regular video is more expensive for conversion. It could be worth another test, but seems to be square is winning!
The other win I want to point out is being able to use a video is that you can now build an audience of video viewers for retargeting. Plus, video can tell the story better than a graphic.
If you’re not using Facebook Live or Videos already, or you’re doing them half-heartedly, you really must to incorporate it into your marketing strategy. You will be amazed at the sudden jump in increase of reach that your page will get and the engagement that will come.
Another point to consider Facebook advertising is that you can introduce a graphic element to your ads. It’s clear that showing images or photos can really increase the interest of a reader.
Remember that a successful campaign evolves with time. As you look over your data, you’ll see things that work and you’ll see things that don’t work. I test this every time I launch a new ad. It is WORTH TESTING! It will save you lots of money in end. 🙂
Video vs Graphic in Facebook Ads – Which do you NOW think would works better?