Meta’s AI integration just gave marketers something unprecedented. Direct access to what people are actually asking about.
Someone queries Meta AI about the best accounting software for small businesses. They’ve literally told you what they need. Then you show them a generic “Book a demo” ad in their feed.
You’ve completely missed it.
I’ve watched this play out across dozens of campaigns. Brands celebrating enhanced targeting whilst running the exact same creative they’ve always run. The capability is there. The execution isn’t.
And if you let it run without understanding the distinction, it can actually perform worse than standard targeting.
The Signal Everyone’s Misreading
Meta’s combining two fundamentally different types of user behaviour. The AI chat is active intent. Someone’s asking a question, looking for an answer, in research mode.
The feed is passive. They’re scrolling, not searching. Different mental state entirely.
Most brands treat both signals identically. Push the same product messages regardless of where someone is in their journey. But active attention involves deliberate mental engagement linked to decision-making, whilst passive attention processes information subconsciously.
That’s not a technical distinction. It’s a fundamental difference in how people are thinking when they see your ad.
If someone’s asked Meta AI about accounting software options, they’re in evaluation mode. They want comparison content. They want to understand trade-offs. They want someone to help them think through the decision.
Instead, you’re showing them a carousel of features and a call-to-action they’re not ready for.
The intent is right there. You’re just not listening to it.
What The Ad Should Actually Look Like
Let’s use that accounting software example. Most brands would show a feature carousel. “Streamline your finances. Automate invoicing. Book a demo.”
What they should show is content that directly answers the question they asked. A simple graphic comparing the top three options for small businesses. A quick video addressing “What small business owners get wrong about accounting software.”
The ad should feel like a continuation of the conversation they started with the AI. Not an interruption.
It’s about being useful first, selling second.
If someone’s in research mode, help them research. Don’t jump straight to “buy now” when they’re nowhere near that decision point.
I’ve run this as split tests. Same audience, same budget, different creative approaches. One set running traditional conversion-focused Meta Ads. Another set running educational content that addresses actual questions.
The educational content consistently delivers lower cost per click, higher engagement rates, and when you track through to actual closed deals, significantly better quality.
The people who’ve been educated first convert at higher rates. They have better lifetime value because they actually understand what they’re buying.
The immediate lead volume might be slightly lower. But the cost per qualified opportunity drops dramatically.
Why Brands Keep Getting This Wrong
It’s not a capability issue. Any decent creative team can make educational content. The problem is organisational.
Most marketing teams are still measured on immediate conversions. They optimise everything for the bottom of the funnel. When you tell them to create content that helps rather than sells, they see it as wasted ad spend.
They want every impression to drive a lead or sale right now.
But the reality is simple. If someone’s asking questions, they’re not ready to buy yet. You’re burning money trying to force them into a decision they haven’t made.
The internal pressure to show ROI on every single ad means they default back to product-first messaging. Short-term thinking that actually costs more in the long run because you’re fighting against where the customer actually is in their journey.
I saw this at scale when I was building growth functions for fintech companies. The teams that succeeded weren’t the ones with the biggest budgets or most sophisticated targeting. They were the ones that matched their creative to customer intent.
The brands that understand this distinction between helping and selling are the ones that’ll actually benefit from Meta’s AI integration.
Everyone else is just getting better at showing the wrong message to the right person.
The Measurement Problem That’s Costing You Money
Here’s where it gets uncomfortable. You need to reframe what you’re measuring.
For service businesses, leads are meaningless. Anyone can generate leads. A dental practice doesn’t care about form fills. They care about people who actually book and show up for appointments.
For fintech clients, I track through to activated accounts or first transaction, not just sign-ups. The gap between a lead and a real customer can be massive.
I’ve seen campaigns that generated three times more leads but half the actual customers compared to a different approach.
To see the full picture, you typically need 60 to 90 days of data. Sometimes longer for higher-ticket services. That’s uncomfortable for clients used to looking at weekly lead reports.
But it’s the only way to actually know if your marketing is working or just generating noise.
The brands doing this well have connected their CRM data back to their ad platforms. They’re optimising for real business outcomes, not vanity metrics.
Once clients see that the helpful approach actually costs less per real customer, the entire conversation changes. It’s not about ROI on every ad anymore. It’s about ROI on the entire customer journey.
The Competitive Advantage Nobody’s Taking
Meta’s integration creates a specific opportunity. Most of your competitors are still running interruptive ads. They’re using enhanced targeting to show the same tired creative to more precisely defined audiences.
You can use the same targeting data to actually answer the questions people are asking.
That’s the difference between assistance and interruption.
When someone asks Meta AI about solutions to a problem, and then sees your ad that directly addresses that problem, you’re not advertising anymore. You’re providing value.
The Meta privacy manager noted that people already assumed this integration was happening. The technology isn’t surprising. What’s surprising is how few brands are using it strategically.
The capability has outpaced the execution by years.
What Changes Starting Tomorrow
You don’t need to rebuild your entire creative strategy. You need to audit it against a simple question.
If someone just asked Meta AI the question that led them to see this ad, does your creative answer that question or ignore it?
For most brands, the honest answer is ignore.
Start with your highest-intent keywords. The searches and queries that indicate someone’s actively researching. Build creative that addresses those specific questions.
Not “here’s why we’re great.” Not “book a demo.” Answer the actual question they asked.
Test it against your standard conversion creative. Track beyond leads to actual customers. Give it 60 to 90 days.
What you’ll find is that precision targeting without relevant creative just makes your ads more expensive. You’re paying more to show the wrong message to the right person at the right time.
The brands that win with Meta’s AI integration won’t be the ones with the biggest budgets or most sophisticated targeting. They’ll be the ones that use those signals to actually help people instead of interrupting them.
Meta handed you the question. The answer is right there in what your customer actually needs.
