Do video ads or static image ads work better for newsletter growth on Meta?

When I reviewed two publishers' ad accounts, the first thing I flagged was that every ad was a static image. None were video.

"I don't want to say those can't work, they just don't work as well as video ads. You should prioritize video and then maybe throw in some static here and there."

How much better is video?

The primary number I look at is cost per result, which for me is cost per subscriber. It's much lower with video. I don't think I've run a static ad since I started, because we saw video do better. That's industry standard at this point, not just in local.

One newsroom I started working with had been running static ads at about $2 to $3 per result. A program partner told our publisher cohort the same pattern: most news ad accounts run static, while Meta strongly favors video.

Why does video win?

The video's job is to get people to stop. That's it. Motion in the background catches the eye, and then they start reading or listening. People respond to ads that look like content, and video is the format.

What if I don't have any video?

• Photos as video. Real footage beats photos with a slow zoom, but if no footage exists, photos are a fallback.
• A photo slideshow. When one audience complained about AI video, I switched to a slideshow of about 10 real event photos at one to 1.5 seconds each, leading with people.

Are there times I still use static?

A few. For a B2B consulting offer I used a professional-looking static with a short list of what you get and a crossed-out price. On one batch I planned a static image with a small video of me talking in the corner. And on one account we ran image ads on Advantage+ placements because there was limited data comparing image to video there.

For a free local newsletter, though, start with video. The format details are in the three parts of a Meta video ad.