You're auditing the wrong things
Hey,
Most Meta audits are backwards.
They start with "what's performing poorly?" and work backward.
Wrong question.
The right question: "What business problems am I trying to solve, and what does my Meta data tell me about them?"
Here's why this matters.
The audit philosophy that changes everything
I've been thinking about audits differently lately.
Instead of checking boxes (campaign structure ✓, creative rotation ✓, audience targeting ✓), I ask:
What can only Meta data tell me about my business?
Because here's the thing: Your Meta account isn't just an ad platform. It's a research lab showing you who actually responds to your message, when they engage, and what makes them take action.
Most founders treat it like a vending machine. Put money in, get customers out.
The ones who scale treat it like a diagnostic tool.
The 3 layers of audit thinking
When I look at a Meta account, I'm looking at three distinct layers:
Layer 1: Infrastructure (The foundation)
This is the boring stuff. The stuff nobody wants to fix because it's not sexy.
But it's where most money bleeds.
The questions that matter:
Is your pixel tracking the events you actually care about?
Are your customer exclusions updating automatically or manually?
Do you have a systematic way to test without contaminating data?
Most founders skip this. They want to jump straight to creative testing or audience testing.
But if your foundation is broken, everything built on top is guesswork.
The mental model I use:
Think of your Meta account like a house. You can have the most beautiful furniture (creative) and the best interior design (campaign structure), but if the foundation is cracked, nothing else matters.
Your infrastructure questions:
Are we tracking what we think we're tracking?
Are we excluding who we think we're excluding?
Can we trust the data we're optimizing against?
If the answer to any of these is "I'm not sure," stop everything else and fix this first.
Layer 2: Resource allocation (The economics)
This is where business thinking replaces marketing thinking.
You have limited budget. Meta wants to spend it all. The question is: where is it going?
Because here's what most people miss: Meta is an engagement platform first, ad platform second.
When Meta spends heavily somewhere - even if the CPA looks terrible - there's usually a reason. And that reason is often more valuable than the immediate conversion data.
The question I ask:
Where is Meta spending aggressively, and why did it choose to allocate there?
I see accounts where 70% of spend flows to one ad with a higher CPA than others, and the founder wants to kill it.
But that's backwards thinking.
High spend is a signal.
Meta's algorithm found something engaging there. Maybe the creative sparked comments. Maybe it's getting shared. Maybe you said something that resonates (or is controversial) and people can't look away.
That engagement is valuable. Even if the immediate ROAS doesn't reflect it yet.
Here's how to audit this:
Pull your ads with the highest spend in the last 30 days.
For each one, ask:
What's the engagement rate? (comments, shares, saves)
Is the creative doing something unexpected?
Are we saying something that's generating conversation?
Why would Meta's algorithm choose to spend here?
The ads eating your budget are telling you something about what resonates with your market.
Your job is to figure out what that is, then optimize for conversion without killing the engagement that drove the spend in the first place.
This is where real money gets made. Not analyzing low-spend, low-ROAS segments that Meta already decided aren't worth it.
Follow where Meta is spending. Then figure out why. That's your roadmap.
Layer 3: Signal intelligence (The learning)
This is the layer most people never reach.
It's not about what content is getting spend. It's about who is responding - and what that tells you about your business.
The questions:
What audience demographics are converting that you didn't target?
Which age groups or genders perform best that contradict your ICP assumptions?
What geographic markets are showing unexpected demand?
Your Meta account is constantly testing your business strategy. Most founders aren't listening.
Example of what I mean:
Let's say you built a product for 25-34 year old women. Your creative speaks to them. Your messaging is tailored for them.
But when you pull your breakdown by age and gender, your best volume and performance is coming from 45-54 year old men.
Most people ignore this. "That's not our customer."
But what if it is? What if your assumptions about your ICP were wrong? What if there's a positioning angle you haven't considered?
This isn't about creative. Layer 2 told you what message resonates. Layer 3 tells you who it resonates with.
The data is trying to teach you something about your actual market vs. your assumed market.
Are you listening?
The bottom line
Stop auditing for problems.
Start auditing for insights.
Your Meta account isn't just a tool to acquire customers. It's a window into your market.
The data is trying to tell you:
Who actually wants your product (not who you think wants it)
What messaging resonates (not what you think should resonate)
Where demand exists (not where you assumed it would be)
Most founders spend months on customer research, surveys, and focus groups.
Your Meta account is doing that research in real-time. With real money. On real customers.
Are you paying attention?
What I'm working on
Links worth your time
The Century of the Self - Part 1 and Part 2 taught me a lot about marketing to the masses and intersection of psychology, propaganda, and consumerism!
Your take?
What's one assumption about your customer that your Meta data might be challenging?
Hit reply. Tell me. I'm genuinely curious what you're seeing.
Talk soon,
Kris