johncena140799
Member
I was chatting with a friend the other day about online advertising, and we stumbled into something that made me stop and think. We were about running relationship ads, and he casually asked, “Do you ever bother with geo targeting, or do you just throw them everywhere and hope for the best?” Honestly, until a few months ago, I was in the second camp. My thought was: if people are looking for connections, they're everywhere, right? Why restrict myself?
But after messing around with it, I realized there's way more to geo targeting than I expected.
The first thing I noticed when I skipped geo targeting was a lot of wasted impressions. Sure, people saw the ads, but half of them weren't even in regions where the dating service I was promoting made sense. Sometimes I'd get clicks from small towns where the platform barely had users. Other times it was from countries the site didn't even serve. That was surprising—not just for me, but I'm guessing also for the people who clicked, got curious, and then realized the site wasn't available to them.
So, I started experimenting. At first, I did the obvious thing: target big metro areas where dating apps are usually popular. That helped, but it wasn't as straightforward as I hoped. In some cities, the ads really picked up. In others, I saw clicks but no real sign-ups. My first instinct was that maybe my ad copy was off, but then I realized the bigger issue was competition. Places with a ton of dating options make it harder to stand out.
Then I got curious about going hyper-local. Instead of just targeting entire cities, I narrowed it down to neighborhoods or suburbs. That was interesting because smaller areas had less competition. People responded more personally when they saw something that felt closer to home. Like, if the ad mentioned “connect with singles nearby,” it suddenly became literally nearby, not just in some massive metro. The click-throughs went up in a way I didn't expect.
Of course, it wasn't all wins. A mistake I made at first was being too narrow. For example, I once restricted a campaign to just one zip code. I figured it would feel personal, but the numbers were so tiny that it wasn't worth it. Lesson learned: balance matters. Too broad wastes money, too narrow doesn't give enough traction.
What helped me refine things was actually paying attention to local culture. I knew it sounds obvious, but I didn't think about it until I noticed differences. An ad that worked fine in one city flopped in another just because of tone. In more conservative regions, lighter, friendly messaging did better. In big city areas, bolder language seems fine. Once I caught onto that, I began adjusting creatives based on the feel of the area, not just the location data.
Another thing I found useful is layering geo targeting with other filters. For instance, instead of just picking a city, I combine it with age groups or device type. That way, I wasn't just reaching “everyone in Chicago,” but maybe “people in Chicago between 25–35 who browse on mobile.” That combo cuts out a lot of noise and makes the ad spend stretch further.
The coolest part is that once you start playing with this, it feels less like guesswork and more like actual strategy. It's not about blasting ads everywhere—it's about showing them where they'll actually make sense and connect with the right people.
If anyone's curious to dive deeper into this, I came across this breakdown that explains some of the Best Geo-Targeting Strategies for Relationship Ads. It goes into more detail than my trial-and-error approach and helped me figure out why some of my early tests went sideways: Advanced Geo-Targeting Strategies for Relationship Ads .
At the end of the day, I think geo targeting is one of those things people either underestimate or overcomplicate. My takeaway is: don't ignore it, but don't overthink it either. Start broad, trim what doesn't work, and pay attention to the local flavor. It's way more effective (and less expensive) than just blanketing everyone everywhere.
Curious if anyone else here has tried it—do you go hyper-local, or stick with larger areas?
But after messing around with it, I realized there's way more to geo targeting than I expected.
The first thing I noticed when I skipped geo targeting was a lot of wasted impressions. Sure, people saw the ads, but half of them weren't even in regions where the dating service I was promoting made sense. Sometimes I'd get clicks from small towns where the platform barely had users. Other times it was from countries the site didn't even serve. That was surprising—not just for me, but I'm guessing also for the people who clicked, got curious, and then realized the site wasn't available to them.
So, I started experimenting. At first, I did the obvious thing: target big metro areas where dating apps are usually popular. That helped, but it wasn't as straightforward as I hoped. In some cities, the ads really picked up. In others, I saw clicks but no real sign-ups. My first instinct was that maybe my ad copy was off, but then I realized the bigger issue was competition. Places with a ton of dating options make it harder to stand out.
Then I got curious about going hyper-local. Instead of just targeting entire cities, I narrowed it down to neighborhoods or suburbs. That was interesting because smaller areas had less competition. People responded more personally when they saw something that felt closer to home. Like, if the ad mentioned “connect with singles nearby,” it suddenly became literally nearby, not just in some massive metro. The click-throughs went up in a way I didn't expect.
Of course, it wasn't all wins. A mistake I made at first was being too narrow. For example, I once restricted a campaign to just one zip code. I figured it would feel personal, but the numbers were so tiny that it wasn't worth it. Lesson learned: balance matters. Too broad wastes money, too narrow doesn't give enough traction.
What helped me refine things was actually paying attention to local culture. I knew it sounds obvious, but I didn't think about it until I noticed differences. An ad that worked fine in one city flopped in another just because of tone. In more conservative regions, lighter, friendly messaging did better. In big city areas, bolder language seems fine. Once I caught onto that, I began adjusting creatives based on the feel of the area, not just the location data.
Another thing I found useful is layering geo targeting with other filters. For instance, instead of just picking a city, I combine it with age groups or device type. That way, I wasn't just reaching “everyone in Chicago,” but maybe “people in Chicago between 25–35 who browse on mobile.” That combo cuts out a lot of noise and makes the ad spend stretch further.
The coolest part is that once you start playing with this, it feels less like guesswork and more like actual strategy. It's not about blasting ads everywhere—it's about showing them where they'll actually make sense and connect with the right people.
If anyone's curious to dive deeper into this, I came across this breakdown that explains some of the Best Geo-Targeting Strategies for Relationship Ads. It goes into more detail than my trial-and-error approach and helped me figure out why some of my early tests went sideways: Advanced Geo-Targeting Strategies for Relationship Ads .
At the end of the day, I think geo targeting is one of those things people either underestimate or overcomplicate. My takeaway is: don't ignore it, but don't overthink it either. Start broad, trim what doesn't work, and pay attention to the local flavor. It's way more effective (and less expensive) than just blanketing everyone everywhere.
Curious if anyone else here has tried it—do you go hyper-local, or stick with larger areas?
231 Nguyễn Văn Cừ, Phường Chợ Quán, TP. Hồ Chí Minh
