Digital Agency | Human expertise, scaled with AI & ML.
This article introduces and defines the concept of "Optimization Theater" — a suite of platform-native features that leverage artificial intelligence and automation to create a facade of performance enhancement while structurally prioritizing platform revenue over advertiser efficiency.
Through an analysis of recent (2024–2025) feature rollouts from Meta, Google, LinkedIn, and TikTok, this research deconstructs five key tactics: Audience Expansion 2.0, Goal Substitution, Automated Campaign Creation, AI-Powered Spend Nudging, and Black-Box Performance Attribution.
It is argued that these mechanisms, while promising simplicity and improved return on investment (ROI), systemically erode advertiser control, distort performance metrics, and accelerate budget depletion. By examining the inherent misalignment of incentives in the digital advertising ecosystem, this research provides a critical framework for advertisers to identify and navigate these deceptive patterns, advocating for a strategic shift from blind faith in automation to rigorous, independent validation.
The contemporary digital advertising landscape is dominated by a singular narrative: the inexorable rise of artificial intelligence. Platforms promise a new era of efficiency, where complex campaign management is simplified and performance is supercharged by machine learning. However, this article argues that the industry-wide pivot to AI-driven advertising is not merely a technological evolution but a strategic economic shift designed to benefit the platforms themselves.
A suite of features, launched from 2024 onward, has created what this article defines as "Optimization Theater": a sophisticated performance designed to automate the process of spending money, framing this automation as "intelligence" while systematically obscuring the levers that traditionally allowed for genuine efficiency optimization. As Bill Gates famously stated,
Automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency.
This article contends that platforms are deliberately applying automation to the inherently inefficient operation of budget allocation, thereby magnifying waste for their own gain.
This dynamic is rooted in the economic theory of "toxic competition," where market participants are rewarded for behavior that is detrimental to the consumer — in this case, the advertiser. The fundamental business model of ad platforms relies on advertiser spend, creating a direct conflict with the advertiser's goal of maximizing profit. This misalignment incentivizes a race to the bottom; platforms that create the most frictionless path to higher spending gain market share, and advertisers who resist these platform-pushed tactics risk falling behind. One market participant described foregoing these features as "competing with one hand behind one's back".
The industry's fervent, almost uncritical, embrace of AI provides the perfect cover for this strategic shift. A 2025 Mediaocean report highlights that automation is the only growing investment area for marketers, with 63% identifying generative AI as the most critical consumer trend. Yet, this adoption is often "piecemeal," with a staggering 86% of advertisers reporting a lack of synchronization between their creative and media processes. This chaotic rush toward automation creates an ideal environment for platforms to roll out "intelligent" features that exploit the desire for simplicity without delivering genuine strategic value.
This article will deconstruct the five core tactics of Optimization Theater to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding and navigating this new, deceptive landscape.
The first act in Optimization Theater involves convincing advertisers to relinquish control over their most valuable asset: their audience. Features like Meta's Advantage+ Audience are marketed as intelligent systems that unlock hidden pockets of high-intent customers, promising superior performance through AI-powered discovery. The official narrative is that the platform can "discover and reach the buyers that are most likely to convert" by looking beyond an advertiser's manual inputs, thereby improving results and saving time. Meta's internal testing bolsters this claim, citing up to a 28% lower cost-per-click (CPC) and 7% lower cost-per-conversion, positioning Advantage+ as a clear efficiency-enhancing tool.
Beneath the surface, these systems are engineered to prioritize platform revenue by fundamentally redefining the goal of targeting. Advantage+ uses an advertiser's inputs merely as "Audience Suggestions" and is explicitly designed to expand beyond them, using signals like past engagement to find new users. The primary optimization, however, is not for the most valuable action (a qualified lead or sale) but for the cheapest achievable action — an impression or a click. This mechanism was supercharged by platform changes in 2024 and 2025 that phased out detailed targeting exclusions, effectively forcing advertisers to "lean into audience expansion and let Meta's algorithms find the right people for you". This change removed the advertiser's ability to enforce crucial negative constraints, handing the system a blank check to pursue reach at any cost.
The consequence of this forced expansion is a dramatic trade-off between superficial cost efficiency and actual business performance. A 2024 benchmark report from Strike Social, analyzing U.S. Facebook campaign data, provides stark evidence. While Advantage+ Audience improved Cost-Per-Mille (CPM) by an impressive 51% year-over-year, the Click-Through Rate (CTR) simultaneously plummeted by 61%. For video campaigns, the story was similar: Cost-Per-View (CPV) improved by 20%, but view rates fell by 13%. The only campaign objective that saw improvements in both cost and engagement was "Traffic," a lower-funnel goal that is itself a form of goal distortion, as will be analyzed later.
This quantitative data is echoed by a chorus of frustrated advertisers. In 2024, one Reddit user described Advantage+ Shopping Campaigns as "the absolute worst thing ever introduced to meta," akin to "pouring gasoline on money and lighting it when you press publish". Another advertiser reported that while an Advantage+ campaign delivered a 61% lower cost-per-lead, all 130 of the leads generated were unqualified, rendering the cost savings meaningless.
Marketing expert John Loomer's critique of Advantage+ for leads crystallizes the issue: "the algorithm is focused on getting you the most leads within your budget," not the best ones. He notes it often achieves this by concentrating spend on older demographics that are cheaper to reach but are ultimately "low quality leads [that] are a complete waste of money".
The mechanics of Audience Expansion 2.0 reveal a sophisticated strategy to manipulate advertiser perception. Platforms understand that marketers are conditioned to view metrics like CPM and CPC as primary indicators of efficiency. The algorithms are therefore engineered to excel at these metrics by finding the cheapest, most abundant inventory available, which is by definition the least engaged and least relevant. The platform can then present a report showing a "51% improvement in CPM," a figure that appears to be a massive win. This positive reinforcement on a superficial vanity metric psychologically masks the simultaneous collapse in a more meaningful metric like CTR (down 61%) or, more importantly, lead quality. The advertiser is thus caught in a deceptive loop: the campaign is "efficient" on paper, but business results are poor. The platform's implicit suggestion is to increase the budget to find more "good" users within the vast, low-quality audience it has unlocked. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of increased spend chasing diminishing returns — a perfect illustration of Optimization Theater.
The second tactic in Optimization Theater is Goal Substitution, a subtle but powerful mechanism that nudges advertisers away from high-value objectives toward cheaper, less effective ones. Platforms like Meta and LinkedIn present a clear, logical menu of campaign objectives, from "Brand Awareness" to "Website Visits" to "Conversions," creating the illusion that the advertiser is in full control of aligning the platform's algorithm with their desired business outcome.
In practice, platforms erect significant structural barriers to entry for the most valuable objectives, primarily "Conversions." To exit the "learning phase" and optimize effectively, conversion-focused campaigns require a high volume of data. TikTok advises advertisers to secure 50 conversions within 10 days to ensure stable outcomes. Similarly, Meta's algorithm needs 30 to 50 conversions per month to perform effectively. For new businesses, small advertisers, or those selling high-ticket items, these thresholds are often unattainable.
When an advertiser inevitably fails to meet this high bar, the platform offers a convenient off-ramp: the "Traffic" objective. It is cheaper, requires no complex conversion tracking, and provides immediate, visible results in the form of clicks. The platform frames this not as a downgrade but as a necessary preliminary step, advising advertisers to use Traffic campaigns to "build valuable retargeting audiences for later Conversion campaigns". This positions a low-value objective as a strategic stepping stone, guiding the advertiser into the trap.
This is a clear act of Goal Substitution. The advertiser's true goal is profitable sales, but they are systemically nudged into selecting a campaign objective ("Traffic") that is fundamentally misaligned with that outcome. The problem with optimizing for traffic is that the algorithm will dutifully find users most likely to click, who are often not the same users most likely to buy. As one analysis bluntly states, with a Traffic campaign, "you're paying for clicks, not purchases. That means you could be getting tons of visitors but no conversions. The result? Wasted ad spend and frustration". These clicks often come from low-quality inventory, such as users prone to accidental clicks or placements on third-party networks designed for high volume over quality. The existence of entire ad networks like RichAds and PropellerAds, which specialize in selling billions of daily impressions of cheap "push traffic," demonstrates the massive scale of this low-quality inventory. When an advertiser chooses a "Traffic" objective, they are effectively asking the platform to compete in this low-value market, ensuring rapid budget depletion for actions that do not contribute to the bottom line.
The process of Goal Substitution masterfully manufactures a marketing funnel that leads nowhere but to increased platform revenue. First, the platform establishes a high barrier to entry for the most valuable campaign objective, "Conversions." It then presents a low-barrier alternative, "Traffic," as a helpful "solution" for advertisers who cannot meet the initial requirement. The advertiser, feeling they are making a logical and strategic choice, selects the "Traffic" objective. The platform's algorithm, now tasked with a simple goal, spends the budget with extreme efficiency, delivering a high volume of cheap clicks. The campaign report appears successful based on the chosen objective, showing a low CPC and high click volume. However, the advertiser's business metrics tell a different story: no sales. The platform has successfully performed its function (spending the budget) and delivered on the selected key performance indicator (KPI), while completely failing to deliver on the advertiser's intended business outcome. This is a quintessential piece of Optimization Theater, creating the illusion of a functioning marketing funnel that is, in reality, a direct pipe from the advertiser's wallet to the platform's revenue stream.
The third pillar of Optimization Theater is the proliferation of "one-click" automated campaign creation tools. Products like LinkedIn's "Accelerate" and TikTok's "Smart Performance Campaign" (SPC) are presented as revolutionary AI co-pilots, promising to save time and deliver superior results by automating the tedious work of campaign setup. The official claims are compelling: LinkedIn asserts that Accelerate can improve cost-per-action by up to 42% and is 15% more efficient to build than classic campaigns. TikTok reports that its SPC reduces campaign creation time by 26% and outperforms traditional campaigns in up to 80% of cases. These tools are marketed as intelligent assistants that handle the "heavy lifting" of targeting, bidding, and creative optimization, freeing marketers to focus on high-level strategy.
The core bargain offered by these tools is the abdication of manual control in exchange for supposed AI superiority. With LinkedIn Accelerate, advertisers can "tweak" settings, but the AI handles the foundational tasks of audience building, bidding, and dynamic budget reallocation. TikTok's SPC is an even more "fully automated solution" where advertisers simply input their assets and a goal, and the machine handles the rest. This means relinquishing granular control over targeting, bidding, and creative delivery. For example, a critical limitation in SPC is the inability to assign different destination URLs to different creatives within the same campaign, a flaw one analyst called a "deal-breaker" because it prevents tailored user journeys.
While platforms showcase glowing testimonials from major brands like Siemens and Calendly for LinkedIn Accelerate, independent user experiences from 2024 and 2025 reveal a darker reality where automation leads to uncontrollable waste.
In a striking viral social media post from earlier this year, a B2B advertiser launched a LinkedIn Accelerate campaign with a specific country target. The result was a disaster: a staggering 40% of the clicks came from outside the targeted geography. When the advertiser contacted support, they were told they should have manually excluded all other English-speaking countries — an impractical and user-hostile workaround that defeats the purpose of an "automated" tool. This incident exposes the algorithm's true priority: finding the cheapest possible click, even if it means violating the advertiser's explicit constraints.
A similar pattern emerges from an independent analysis of TikTok's SPC versus a manual Return on Ad Spend (ROAS) campaign for a dating app. The SPC delivered vastly superior upper-funnel metrics: CPC was 66% lower, and Cost Per Install (CPI) was 39% lower. However, the quality of the acquired users was significantly worse. The manual campaign's Average Revenue Per User (ARPU) was 31% higher than that of the SPC. While the sheer volume of low-quality users from SPC led to a slightly higher overall ROAS in this specific test, it demonstrates a dangerous pattern. The system prioritizes cheap, high-volume acquisition over valuable, high-quality acquisition. For businesses with different profit margins or customer lifetime values, this "efficiency" could be financially ruinous.
These automated tools are not malfunctioning; they are operating exactly as designed, but their definition of "optimization" is fundamentally misaligned with the advertiser's business needs. When an advertiser provides an objective (e.g., "Lead Generation") and a constraint (e.g., "Target USA"), the system interprets its primary directive as "achieve the objective at the lowest possible cost." If the algorithm discovers that clicks from outside the USA are cheaper, it will violate the geographical constraint to secure those clicks, thereby "optimizing" the campaign according to its core logic. The resulting campaign report may show a fantastic CPC, but the advertiser has wasted a significant portion of their budget on completely irrelevant traffic. This is not a bug; it is the logical outcome of an algorithm whose programming prioritizes platform-centric metrics over advertiser-centric results. It is a textbook example of the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, where flawed inputs (a simplistic definition of optimization) lead to garbage outputs (wasted spend).
The fourth tactic of Optimization Theater is more direct: AI-powered nudges designed to persuade advertisers to increase their budgets. These prompts are framed as helpful alerts and strategic recommendations. A classic example is the "limited by budget" status in Google Ads, which implies that an advertiser is leaving money on the table by not spending enough to capture all available traffic. Similarly, LinkedIn uses demographic insights to suggest "Audience Expansion" to reach new, similar audiences, framing a budget increase as the gateway to growth.
These recommendations are not neutral suggestions; they are "dark nudges" designed to "exploit cognitive biases" to promote a desired behavior — in this case, increased spending. These AI-powered prompts leverage several principles of behavioral science to maximize their persuasive power:
Following these AI-driven recommendations can lead to catastrophic results. When a budget is increased dramatically, the algorithm is often forced to venture into lower-quality, less relevant inventory to spend the new funds, causing a sharp decline in efficiency.
A powerful case study from a Google Ads advertiser in 2025 illustrates this "bait-and-switch" perfectly. After being encouraged by the platform to increase their app install campaign budget from $10,000 to $20,000, the advertiser saw an immediate and devastating collapse in performance. Their conversion rate dropped by over 90%, and the cost per conversion nearly doubled. They described the new users as the "worst-quality" they had ever received, concluding that the system "ran out of real traffic and dumped our budget into irrelevant impressions just to spend the money". An expert commenting on the case confirmed this is a common pattern:
"Those 'Google' (3rd party) 'Experts' (they are not) are compensated for getting you to spend more. Google is already getting you the lowest hanging fruit, and the extra ad spend goes after what converts more poorly".
The advertiser's subsequent attempts to get accountability from Google were met with dismissal and canned responses, highlighting the extreme power imbalance in the ecosystem.
This mechanism reveals one of the most cynical aspects of Optimization Theater. An advertiser's campaign is performing efficiently, capturing the most relevant, "low-hanging fruit" within its current budget. The platform's system identifies this state of high efficiency and frames it as a problem: the campaign is "limited by budget." An AI-powered nudge is then deployed, leveraging FOMO and authority bias to recommend a significant budget increase. The advertiser, trusting the platform's "intelligence," agrees to the recommendation. The algorithm, now over-funded relative to the available high-quality inventory, is forced to expand into lower-quality, lower-converting placements to spend the additional funds. As a result, campaign performance collapses, but the platform's revenue from that advertiser increases. The platform has successfully used an "intelligent" nudge to directly incentivize a move from an efficient state to an inefficient one, purely for its own financial gain.
The final act of Optimization Theater is the obfuscation of performance data through black-box attribution models. Google's Performance Max (PMax) serves as the primary case study for this phenomenon. PMax is marketed as Google's most advanced, all-in-one campaign type, using AI to automatically optimize bidding and placements across all of Google's channels — Search, Display, YouTube, Gmail, and more — to maximize conversions or conversion value. The promise is that by ceding full control to the AI, advertisers will achieve superior results with minimal manual effort.
The central and most persistent critique of PMax is its "black box" nature, defined by heavy automation, limited transparency, and a near-total reduction in advertiser control. This opacity forces marketers to "place trust in the enigmatic algorithmic 'black box'". For years after its launch, advertisers had almost no visibility into where their money was being spent or which channels were actually driving results. While Google made concessions toward transparency in 2024 and early 2025 by adding channel-level performance reports and full search term reporting, the core bidding and optimization algorithms remain entirely opaque. Crucial data at the individual asset group level, which would allow for granular performance analysis, is still missing, hindering marketers from accurately assessing the performance of different creative strategies.
This black-box design enables several value-destructive behaviors that directly benefit the platform by inflating its perceived contribution to an advertiser's success.
The black-box model allows the platform to move beyond simply executing campaigns to actively constructing a self-serving narrative of its own effectiveness. The platform creates an all-encompassing, automated campaign type like PMax and makes its internal workings opaque. This opacity prevents advertisers from seeing the full, true customer journey, a core problem with "walled garden" attribution models that consistently overvalue lower-funnel activity.
The algorithm, designed to hit a single performance target, naturally takes the path of least resistance, which involves prioritizing the easiest possible conversions: existing customers searching for the brand name. PMax then claims full credit for these conversions, presenting a highly favorable, but fundamentally misleading, performance report. It creates what one expert calls a "statistical hallucination".
The advertiser, seeing the "strong" performance in their PMax reports, may be inclined to increase its budget or even reduce spend on other campaigns, mistakenly believing PMax is the primary driver of their growth. The platform has thus used opaque, black-box attribution not just to measure results, but to dictate them, driving further investment into its most automated and least controllable product. This is the final act of Optimization Theater, where the platform is not only the actor but also the sole, un-auditable critic writing its own rave reviews.
Audience Expansion 2.0, Goal Substitution, Automated Campaign Creation, AI Spend Nudging, and Black-Box Attribution are not isolated features but components of a coherent, mutually reinforcing system. This system is engineered to maximize platform revenue by creating a facade of AI-powered assistance while systematically eroding advertiser control, distorting performance metrics, and accelerating budget depletion. The core issue is not the technology itself, but the fundamental misalignment of incentives that governs the digital advertising ecosystem, creating a form of "toxic competition" where platforms are rewarded for behavior that harms their customers.
The solution is not a wholesale rejection of automation but a fundamental paradigm shift in the advertiser's mindset — from one of blind faith to one of strategic oversight. As one expert advises, advertisers must "Leverage AI-powered tools to improve efficiency and performance, but maintain human oversight and control over campaign strategies". This sentiment is echoed in the timeless wisdom of Walter Lippmann:
You cannot endow even the best machine with initiative.
In the age of AI, human judgment, critical thinking, and strategic discipline become more valuable, not less.
To navigate the Optimization Theater, advertisers must reclaim their agency by focusing on what they can control and independently verify.
The final message is one of empowerment. The platforms have built a sophisticated theater designed to mesmerize and extract value. However, by understanding the script, recognizing the stagecraft, and refusing to suspend disbelief, advertisers can become discerning critics rather than a captive audience. In the age of Optimization Theater, the most valuable tool is not the platform's AI, but the advertiser's own strategic intelligence.
—
—
.png)
