Should I use retargeting or lookalike audiences for newsletter Meta ads?

Retargeting has a ton of value in certain industries. I just don't think it does in ours.

"The reason is the value of a client is too low."

Why doesn't retargeting pencil for newsletters?

If you're selling a $300 product, you want to do all the retargeting. I typically get newsletter subscribers for 30 cents to a dollar. Even if retargeting worked, your cost would be too high, because you've limited what Meta can do. An advisor I was coaching had a pixel-limited campaign costing about $75 to $80 per result.

I'll caveat that I haven't tested it heavily.

What about lookalike audiences?

"The lookalike stuff makes so much sense in theory but doesn't seem to work as well in practice."

A paid-media specialist at a regional news company found the same in their own tests: retargeting and lookalikes built from page interactions did worse than plain interest audiences. Even Meta now says not to target and to let the creative be the target.

Lookalikes can also choke delivery. One relaunched campaign spent nothing at all, and the diagnosis was an empty or too-narrow lookalike with household income targeting layered on top.

So what do you do instead?

Go broad. My general strategy is to not target: we're a brand, here's what we do for you, you should sign up. Location is the only restriction. The creative attracts the right people and Meta finds more of them. Details in how to target Meta ads for a local newsletter.

Should I upload my subscriber list?

As an exclusion, once it's big enough. Uploading your list so ads don't keep paying to reach people who already subscribe is worth it around 20,000 subscribers. At 3,000 or 4,000 the value isn't there.

When is boosting or engagement different?

Ads that push people to read a story are a different goal from lead generation. And boosting a post that's already popping organically can feed a follow-then-newsletter funnel. That's not retargeting; it's paying to spread what already works.