A twelve-week Meta campaign for Models Oddavell — what each creative cost, what it actually bought, and the one format that outperformed everything else in the account.
Four posts went out between 19 May and 12 August. All four were boosted, and the boosts ran sequentially rather than concurrently across roughly three months.
Two things follow from that, and they bound everything below. There is no organic control anywhere in the set — nothing here shows what this content does unsupported, so no claim about organic performance can be made from it. And because the boosts are spread over twelve weeks, seasonality, audience fatigue and auction conditions all differ between them; cross-post comparison is indicative, not controlled.
The second column matters more than it looks. Six boosts were bought against post engagements and two against Facebook Page visits. Those are different products, and judging one by the other’s metric is the single most common way to misread this campaign — see section 05.
| Post | Platform | Objective | Spend |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Post engagements | ₹385.92 | |
| 1 | Post engagements | ₹577.58 | |
| 2 | Post engagements | ₹742.82 | |
| 2 | Post engagements | ₹1,095.26 | |
| 3 | Post engagements | ₹863.09 | |
| 3 | Page visits | ₹399.96 | |
| 4 | Post engagements | ₹334.17 | |
| 4 | Page visits | ₹210.80 | |
| Eight boosts | ₹4,609.60 | ||
Post 2 ran no Facebook boost at all. Money figures throughout this page come from Ads Manager; saves, shares, comments and follows come from post insights. The two systems disagree on delivery by 1–391%, so no number here divides one by the other.
Tile size reflects performance, not chronology: the carousel earned the largest frame.
Slide one sells the building; slides two to four name what sits within 5, 10 and 15 minutes. It absorbed 40% of the budget, returned the cheapest engagement in the account and produced 86% of the campaign’s saves — and it carried no link.
Each post’s Instagram post-engagement boost, plotted. That is the only like-for-like set in the campaign — the two Facebook buys were bought for a different product entirely.
The two extremes sit in opposite corners. Post 4 bought the cheapest attention in the account — a ₹5.86 CPM, roughly six times cheaper than the next-best Instagram buy — and converted 1.9% of the people it reached. Post 2 paid thirteen times more per impression and returned engagement at ₹0.14, the cheapest in the set.
Nothing lands in the top-left quadrant. Cheap delivery and productive delivery were inversely related across this whole campaign.
Optimising this media buy on CPM alone would have selected exactly the wrong creative. Post 4 looks like the best buy on every impression-based measure and produced the least. Judge on cost per engagement and cost per save instead.
Slide one sells the building. Slides two, three and four list what sits within 5, 10 and 15 minutes — Manipal Hospital, Goa University, Miramar Beach, Raj Bhavan — named individually, by category.
Most expensive attention. Cheapest action. 86% of every save in the campaign, at ₹36.04 each.
A woman on a curved balcony at golden hour, carrying the wordmark and the website’s own hero line. Reached more people than any other post on the smallest budget in the set.
Cheapest attention anywhere in the account. Zero comments. The creative travelled cheaply and stopped nobody.
Read the saves, not the likes. Post 2 produced 51 saves against 11 comments. People filed the drive-time ladder to look at again rather than discussing it — which is the correct behaviour for reference content, and the strongest intent signal available for a purchase this size.
The single most efficient line item anywhere in the account was Post 2’s 9 July boost: ₹0.12 per engagement against a 7,790-person audience.
The lesson generalises past this campaign. Informational, specific, multi-slide content converted attention into action at roughly three times the rate of single-image brand statements, which ran ₹0.36–₹0.39.
None of that came cheap per impression. Post 2 had the highest CPM in the set. It was not cheap attention; it was attention that did something.
Facebook delivered the majority of impressions and almost none of the interactions. Read alone, that is damning. Read against the objectives, it is the media plan working as specified.
On Posts 3 and 4 the Facebook budget was bought for Page visits, not engagement. Low interaction counts there are the specified outcome, not a failure — and that spend delivered 927 Page visits at ₹0.66 each.
The one genuine like-for-like test is Post 1, where both platforms were bought against post engagements. The result: Facebook ₹0.41, Instagram ₹0.38. CPM ₹55.26 against ₹49.37. Instagram was marginally better, not categorically better.
So the common read — that Facebook spend does nothing here — is not supported once objectives are visible. What is supported is narrower: stop judging Facebook on engagement metrics while buying Page visits on it.
Most social reporting stops at reach and engagement rate. This one names the format that worked, the buy that didn’t, and the ₹1,838.08 that had nowhere to go.
Meta Ads Manager delivery rows and Meta Business Suite post insights, 19 May – 12 August 2026. Money figures come from Ads Manager; saves, shares, comments and follows from post insights. The two systems disagree on delivery by 1–391%, so no figure on this page divides one system’s value by the other’s.
Every post in the set was boosted, so no figure here describes organic performance.
Why Location Should Outrank Amenities on a Luxury Property Page
What Client Approval Does — and Doesn’t — Prove
The Market Data Behind India’s Luxury Real Estate Boom
The Case Against Shadows in Luxury Digital Design
The Three Escapes That Make Luxury Brands Look More Generic