Google or Meta: intent decides, attribution settles it

Google reaches a person who typed the need. The click is expensive because it is close to the purchase. Meta reaches a person by who they are and what they have shown interest in; the click is cheap because the need has not been stated. For a company whose buyer searches when the need arrives, movers, contractors, clinics, search wins the first dollar. For a company that has to create the want, a consumer brand, a new concept, social wins it.

Beyond the first dollar, the platforms cannot be compared on their own dashboards. Each claims the conversion. The only fair comparison is in the CRM, where a lead arrived with its click ID and became, or did not become, a booked job or an order with a value.

With that in place the question answers itself monthly. Cost per booked job by platform, by campaign, by market. Budget moves toward the lower number. Minne Movers' Google Ads leads rose 23% on 48% more spend in a year; that trade was worth making because the report showed what the leads booked.

Most growing companies end up running both, with search carrying the demand that exists and social building the demand that does not yet. They should report into the same attribution, land on the same paths, and feed conversions back with the same values. Then it is one program with two channels, and the budget follows the number.