Thinking · Newsletter
Running the same ad on every platform is a budget decision disguised as a strategy
Cross-posting one asset is not efficiency. It is paying full price on every channel for an asset built for one of them.
Every platform has conventions its audience has been trained on, and an ad that ignores them reads as an ad. That is the whole cost.
What actually differs
Where attention starts. Some feeds begin with sound, some do not. Some pre-load the first frame, some do not. The first second is not the same first second everywhere.
What native looks like. The same message shot to look at home on one platform looks slightly wrong on another, and slightly wrong is worse than obviously different.
How long you have. Not the maximum length, the realistic one. They are very different numbers and only one of them is published.
Why teams cross-post anyway
Because it is free, and because the reporting rarely separates the two effects clearly enough for anyone to argue with. The asset performs adequately everywhere and outstandingly nowhere, and that looks like a fine result until you compare it to a channel-native version.
The honest middle ground
You cannot afford a bespoke asset per channel per concept. You can afford a bespoke opening. Keep the body, rebuild the first second per platform, and you get most of the benefit for a fraction of the production.