Updated: 5 August 2026 · Advertising

"Should I advertise on Google or Meta?" is one of the questions I get asked most, and it usually arrives with an answer already half-decided by whatever a competitor did. The right answer doesn't depend on trend — it depends on one thing: how your customer actually decides to buy.

The difference that actually matters: active search versus discovery

Google Ads captures someone who already knows they have a problem and is searching for it right now — "emergency plumber near me," "dental implant cost." The intent already exists; the ad just needs to be there when it shows up.

Meta Ads does the opposite: it interrupts someone who wasn't looking for anything, scrolling their feed, and creates the interest from nothing. There's no prior intent to capture — the creative has to build it.

That underlying difference decides almost everything else.

When Google Ads is the right call

If your customer actively searches for what you offer once the problem exists — emergencies, professional services, repairs, anything with a clear, nameable need — Google Ads captures that already-existing demand. Cost per click tends to run higher than on Meta, but the buying intent behind it does too.

It's also the safer option when you don't have the time or budget to produce eye-catching creative: a well-written text ad, with no image at all, can convert perfectly well on search.

When Meta Ads works better

If the buying decision is visual, emotional or discovery-driven — aesthetics, fashion, hospitality, training, anything where seeing the result matters more than reading about it — Meta reaches people who didn't even know they had that interest until the ad showed up. It's also the cheaper option for generating volume when the ticket is low and the business needs brand awareness, not just immediate conversion.

Creative does the heavy lifting here: an ad without strong imagery or video underperforms no matter how well it's targeted.

When your business fits both cases

Most local businesses aren't purely one or the other. An aesthetics clinic has genuine emergencies (Google) and discovery of a new treatment (Meta). An estate agency has active buyers searching (Google) and owners who never considered selling until they see a well-placed ad (Meta).

In those cases, sequence matters: start with the channel that captures already-existing intent — usually Google — before investing in creating new demand through Meta, because the first tends to convert cheaper and gives real data faster on what message actually works.

The mistake of choosing based on trend

I constantly see businesses switch to Meta because "the click is cheaper," without realising that cheaper click comes from people with no buying intent yet. Comparing only cost per click across platforms without looking at what happens after that click is the most common way to draw the wrong conclusion — the metric that matters is cost per actual customer, not cost per click or even cost per lead. Covered in cost per lead vs cost per customer.

How to test both without overspending

You don't have to commit forever from the first euro. On a tight budget, it makes sense to test whichever channel best fits your type of buying decision for a few weeks, measure the real cost per contact, and only then consider adding the second channel. How to structure that first low-budget test is in Google Ads on a €50 budget.

A worked example

Picture a dental clinic testing both channels on a tight budget. It starts with Google Ads targeting "emergency dentist" and "dental implant cost" in its area — high-intent searches where cost per useful contact tends to be reasonable from the first week, because the demand already existed before the ad did.

With that real data on which treatments actually generate calls, the logical next step is Meta Ads — not to repeat the same message, but to introduce a specific treatment, invisible orthodontics for example, to people who've never searched for it because they didn't know it was an option. The video or image of the treatment itself does the job that the search query did on Google: creating interest from nothing.

The mistake this sequence avoids is spending on Meta before knowing, from real Google data, which specific treatment is actually worth promoting first — Google tells you what's already in demand; Meta then lets you build demand for the next thing on that list, rather than guessing which treatment to feature.

Frequently asked questions

Can I run both from the start? You can, but with small budgets it usually dilutes what you learn from either. Better to validate one with real data before splitting the spend.

Which one is cheaper? Neither is cheaper in the abstract — it depends what you're measuring. Meta usually has a lower cost per click, but that doesn't mean a lower cost per customer if buying intent is weaker.

What if my business doesn't clearly fit either case? That's the signal to test with real data rather than decide from a desk. A small test budget on whichever channel seems most logical gives that answer within a few weeks.

If you're not sure which fits your business, tell me how your customers buy today. How I work is in advertising.