Twitter Ads Reviews

Twitter Ads is decent at showing its own data, but there aren't really any visualizations within the platform that would be directly pulled and sent to a client. Any data or performance from Twitter Ads would need to be pulled, cleaned up and transformed into a more client-friendly version. Google Analytics and Google Data Studio offer more client-friendly visualizations for showing performance.

I have found Facebook for Business much more effective at delivering ads and driving results. LinkedIn is also more effective and has better lead form options, although their ads tend to be pricier.

Google Ads and Facebook Ads have much wider target demographics, however, these two options out-weigh Twitter Ads which only has two options for running Ads. That being said with the lack of ad features, Twitter doesn't stack up against the two.

Facebook Ads, Adwords, Snapchat, LinkedIn, Instagram, Youtube all have ad channels you can use to advertise your product. Some are even tied together. Twitter occupies a part of the market which can be difficult to get right. Mostly, we select other channels for better targeting, cheaper leads, and a better fit for the campaigns we were trying to run. However, there are scenarios in which using Twitter Ads can get you big wins.

Using Twitter in conjunction to Slack helps create seamless set up. Slack is used internally, but allows the team to send real time messages and can easily QA ads before they go live. Twitter faces externally and we can execute on the client's vision. The client also uses Slack so it helps the business move along faster.

Of all the social advertising options we've tried, Twitter falls somewhere in the middle - it's not as low-cost as Facebook, but not as effective for our audience either. It's more cost-effective than LinkedIn, but the targeting is not as robust. It's been a good-enough solution to make us continue putting some budget into it, but is not a main driver for us.

Twitter lags behind both platforms. It is still quite useful as part of a larger campaign but patients in our market do not engage as well as we would like.

Compared to Facebook Ads or Instagram Ads, Twitter Ads was more expensive. However, when we only look at the conversions rate of Twitter Ads, it always had way higher numbers, mainly because it is conversation driven and allows for the customer to speak directly to you as a business owner in a 2 way conversation.

Twitter attracts more potential customers than Facebook. There are more fake users in Facebook than Twitter which also contributes Twitter conversion rate more than Facebook but gets more clicks on Facebook than Twitter. Targeting of users is okay on Twitter, for the first time you have to test but as soon as you will use more you will know how to target whereas it is difficult on Facebook.

Twitter reaches a different demographic than most other platforms we use. It's an important part of the overall marketing objective.

Twitter Ads for my Bank is a far more effective marketing tool than Facebook for Business. With Facebook for Business, we obviously get more clicks on our ads, however, these clicks always yield a very low conversion rate, in terms of users clicking the advert link to our website and registering for a bank account or any of our product on offer. This could be due to the fact that Facebook is a platform of, not just professionals, but everybody from every part of life.

Twitter and Facebook for Business offer a very similar platform for ads for a local advertising option. While Facebook for Business is a bit less expensive than Twitter Ads on a CPM basis, Twitter Ads offers a good conversational platform - instead of appearing as a Business post, a Twitter ad can easily fit within the feed of content a user follows.

Just recently ran a large ad campaign on Facebook and the reports and metrics were amazing. We were able to easily target the exact type of audience we wanted, recognize when performance suffered, tweak/delete, and iterate quickly. But, using Facebook for event ads can sometimes not work out too well, this is why we switched to using Twitter Ads.

We were grandfathered into Twitter ads and when I left the organization, we were actively researching alternatives.

Twitter has less fake users compared to Facebook and other social media platforms. It can be hard to keep up with Facebook Ads because they’re constantly making changes to their system. Twitter is similar to Facebook, you set a budget, place a bid, and run your campaigns. You get almost the same features and uses the same way to create a campaign to target users.

Since the number of fake users is more on Facebook or any other social media panels than Twitter, Twitter platform marks the best platform to connect with potential clients. Although Facebook has more users than Twitter, Twitter gives better and potential clients. Targeted by keywords in tweets or hashtags.
1. Good Message Amplification.
2. Good Campaigns control.
3. Great Features.

Twitter ads are really designed for advertising on Twitter. I believe that it is the most effective strategy for advertising on the platform. However, the key is to understand your audience. If your target audience doesn't really use Twitter, then it may be better to focus on PPC (pay per click) opportunities such as AdWords or Bing.

There is a pricing difference and reach and frequency difference. It also depends if you are going after professionals (B2B) vs. consumers (B2C).

I would say I have the same experience with Facebook Ads as I do with Twitter Ads. The ability to target by interest and demographic really helps the Foundation to reach the users we want and know would benefit from connecting with the Foundation. Google search ads also allows the Foundation to be seen by people searching for specific terms relative to the Foundation and its services. Our LinkedIn Ads experience, however, was lackluster. As a professional platform, the Foundation promoted more news its mobile app and research targeting the medical community. The engagement was not as high as we hoped.

Twitter Ads vs. Facebook - Most would think Facebook would be the go-to but Twitter Ads can be more powerful for the mobile user on the go. 80% of users on Twitter are mobile so not utilizing its mobile footprint would be insane. Facebook is strong on mobile but nowhere near as strong as Twitter Ads and the products Twitter offers are more compelling for financial vertical clients.

We selected Twitter Ads because our paid social marketing team runs various upper funnel tactics that perform very well on this platform.

Twitter Ads seems much more Flexible than Facebook Ads within Facebook for Business. While similar demographics and filters can be used, Twitter Ads seems to have fewer restrictions on content and scheduling than FB Ads.
We actually use both in our social media strategies (and will soon be investigating Instagram Ads for promoted Instagram posts, which operates within a synced Facebook for Business ads account).

Better metrics and easier to use in my opinion. Twitter is easier to optimize. Facebook is more complex and harder to gain insights. Twitter representatives are really hands on and help with optimizations and pricing. Twitter Ads are developing more ad products which are useful in determining content strategy. Twitter is very helpful.