The Meta Playbook
Core Argument: Meta is a consumer platform that can work for B2B with different architecture. Success requires understanding the Meta Paradox, building proper audiences, and creating creative that bridges consumer context to business action.
The Meta Paradox
Meta (Facebook and Instagram) is built for consumer advertising. The platform, the algorithms, and the user behavior are optimized for B2C transactions.
And yet, B2B companies successfully generate pipeline on Meta every day.
The Meta Paradox: A platform designed for consumer impulse can drive considered B2B purchases when architecture accounts for the context gap.
The resolution lies in understanding what Meta does well and what it cannot do:
Meta does well:
- Massive reach at low cost
- Sophisticated retargeting capabilities
- Visual/video creative optimization
- Lookalike audience modeling
Meta cannot do:
- Professional attribute targeting (no job titles)
- High-intent cold prospecting for B2B
- Direct comparison to LinkedIn's professional context
The implication: Meta is a B2B channel for retargeting, lookalikes, and creative-driven awareness. It is not a B2B channel for cold prospecting to job titles.
Meta Economics
Cost Advantage
| Metric | Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| CPM | $8-25 | $30-100 |
| CPC | $1-4 | $5-15 |
| CPL | $30-100 | $75-250 |
Meta costs 1/3 to 1/5 of LinkedIn per impression, click, and lead.
The Quality Trade-Off
Lower costs come with lower quality signals:
| Quality Factor | Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| Professional targeting | Limited | Extensive |
| Professional mindset | No | Yes |
| Intent signals | Behavioral | Professional + Behavioral |
| Lead quality (typical) | Lower | Higher |
The math that matters:
Meta CPL is $50. LinkedIn CPL is $150. Meta looks 3x cheaper.
But Meta lead-to-opportunity is 5%. LinkedIn is 12%.
- Meta cost per opportunity: $1,000
- LinkedIn cost per opportunity: $1,250
The gap narrows dramatically when conversion is factored.
When Meta wins: Retargeting (audience already qualified), lookalikes from high-quality seeds, lower-ACV products, visual products.
When LinkedIn wins: Cold prospecting to specific titles, high-ACV products, complex sales.
Meta Audience Architecture for B2B
Since Meta lacks professional targeting, audience quality must come from other sources.
Audience Type 1: Website Custom Audiences
Your website visitors are pre-qualified (they found you somehow). Retargeting them on Meta is high-efficiency B2B advertising.
Audience segments:
- All website visitors (30, 60, 90 days)
- High-intent page visitors (pricing, demo, contact pages)
- Content consumers (blog readers, resource downloaders)
- Product page visitors
- Cart/checkout abandoners (if applicable)
Audience Type 2: Customer List Custom Audiences
Upload your CRM data to Meta for targeting.
Effective lists:
- Existing customers (for upsell, cross-sell, referral)
- Qualified leads not yet closed
- Webinar/event registrants
- Newsletter subscribers
- Target account contact lists
Match rates: Expect 30-60% match rates. Business emails match worse than personal emails.
Audience Type 3: Lookalike Audiences
Meta's lookalike modeling finds users similar to your seed audience.
Seed quality is everything:
- Best: Closed-won customers
- Good: Qualified opportunities
- Acceptable: Engaged leads (MQLs with engagement)
- Poor: All leads (includes garbage)
Lookalike percentage:
- 1%: Most similar, smallest audience
- 2-5%: Balance of similarity and reach
- 5-10%: Larger reach, looser similarity
Recommendation: Start with 1-2% lookalikes from customer seed. Expand percentage only after validating conversion.
Audience Stacking Strategy
Combine audience types for B2B precision:
Example Stack:
- Lookalike (1%) of customers
- AND interested in "B2B Marketing" or "SaaS"
- AND behavior: Business page admin
- EXCLUDE: Existing customers
The stack narrows the lookalike to more B2B-relevant users.
Meta Creative Strategy for B2B
Consumer platform requires consumer-grade creative with B2B messaging.
Video Is Mandatory
Static images can work on LinkedIn where users expect professional content. On Meta, video dramatically outperforms static for B2B.
Video performance advantage: 2-3x higher engagement, 30-50% lower CPL in most B2B contexts.
Video Requirements:
- Hook in first 3 seconds (or lose viewer)
- Optimized for sound-off (captions mandatory)
- Vertical format for Stories (9:16)
- Square or vertical for Feed (1:1 or 4:5)
- 15-60 seconds optimal length
The Hook-First Structure
First 3 seconds: Pattern interrupt + pain statement
- "Still spending Monday mornings in spreadsheets?"
- "Your sales team is wasting 10 hours a week on this."
- "This is why your pipeline is unpredictable."
Seconds 3-15: Expand the pain, hint at solution
Seconds 15-45: Solution framing and proof
Final seconds: Direct CTA
Creative Types That Work for B2B on Meta
Talking head video: Founder, expert, or customer speaking directly to camera. Authentic, personal, breaks corporate pattern.
Screen capture with voiceover: Show the product solving the problem. Effective for software products.
Customer testimonial: Real customer describing results. Most credible format.
Animated explainer: Motion graphics explaining concept. Works for complex products.
Meta Campaign Architecture
Funnel-Based Approach
Cold (Lookalikes + Interests):
- Objective: Traffic or Lead Generation
- Creative: Educational, awareness-building
- Offer: Content, webinar, assessment
- Budget: 40-50% of total
Warm (Website visitors, engagers):
- Objective: Conversions
- Creative: Solution-focused, proof-heavy
- Offer: Demo, consultation, trial
- Budget: 30-40% of total
Hot (High-intent pages, form abandoners):
- Objective: Conversions
- Creative: Urgency, direct CTA
- Offer: Demo, limited-time offer
- Budget: 15-25% of total
Budget Allocation
Minimum viable spend: $5,000-10,000/month
Testing phase: First 4-6 weeks, allocate 50% to testing audiences and creative.
Scaling phase: Concentrate on winning combinations, expand lookalike percentages gradually.
Case Study: Meta for B2B
A Remotir client (Series A SaaS, $6M ARR, $12k ACV) wanted to supplement LinkedIn with a lower-cost channel.
The Approach:
Rather than cold prospecting on Meta (which fails for B2B), we built a retargeting and lookalike architecture:
Audience Structure:
- Retargeting: Website visitors (30 days), content downloaders
- Lookalike 1%: Based on closed-won customers (487 records)
- Lookalike 2%: Based on qualified leads with high engagement
Creative:
- Talking head video from CEO discussing common pain
- Customer testimonial video (30 seconds)
- Carousel showing before/after workflow
Budget: $6,000/month (vs. $18,000 on LinkedIn)
Results (6 months):
| Metric | Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly spend | $6,000 | $18,000 |
| Leads | 95 | 108 |
| CPL | $63 | $167 |
| Lead-to-Opp | 8% | 14% |
| Opportunities | 7.6 | 15 |
| Cost per Opp | $789 | $1,200 |
The insight: Meta produced lower-quality leads but at sufficient volume and low enough cost that cost per opportunity was actually better than LinkedIn. The channel became a valuable complement, not a replacement.
Conclusion: Context Requires Architecture
Meta is not LinkedIn. Applying LinkedIn strategy to Meta fails.
Meta is a consumer platform where B2B can work with the right architecture:
- Retargeting qualified visitors
- Lookalikes from quality seeds
- Video-first creative
- Funnel-based campaign structure
The Meta Paradox resolves when you accept what the platform is and build architecture accordingly.
Do not ask Meta to find B2B buyers cold. It cannot.
Ask Meta to re-engage people who have shown interest and find similar people. It excels at this.
With proper architecture, Meta becomes a cost-efficient complement to LinkedIn and other channels. Without it, Meta becomes a budget drain producing consumer-quality leads.
Context is everything. Architecture accounts for context.