The difference between a landing page for search and one for social is not the design. It is that one visitor typed a question and the other was interrupted.

That is not a metaphor. It is visible in the platforms’ own product structures, and both of them publish exactly what they judge your page on. Those two lists are different, they are more specific than most people assume, and at least one widely repeated belief about them is contradicted by Google’s own documentation on three separate pages.

Everything below is quoted from live platform documentation.

The structural difference, in the platforms’ own words

Google’s campaign objectives are scoped by campaign type, and this produces a fact worth pausing on: a Search campaign offers no awareness objective at all. The options are Sales, Leads and Website traffic. Awareness appears only on Display, Demand Gen and Video. Every objective available in Search presupposes that the person is already trying to do something.

Meta’s objective list starts from the other end. Its first and broadest objective is Awareness, which Meta describes this way: “Build awareness of your business. This objective will help you reach the largest number of people who are most likely to remember your ad.”

And the auctions are triggered by different things. Meta states plainly: “When advertisers create ads, they tell us who they want to show their ads to by defining a target audience.” Google’s equivalent trigger is the search term.

So on one platform you are answering a question someone asked. On the other you are interrupting someone who asked nothing. Every subsequent difference between the two pages follows from that, including what each platform measures.

Campaign objectives published by each advertising platform and how they are scopedCampaign objectives published by each of the two major advertising platforms and how those objectives are scoped by campaign type. Google Ads publishes five marketing objectives: Sales, described as driving sales or conversions online, in app, by phone or in store; Leads, described as encouraging relevant customers to express interest by signing up for a newsletter or providing contact information; Website traffic, described as driving potential customers to visit a website; YouTube reach, views and engagements, described as increasing awareness of products or services and introducing customers to an offer when releasing a new product or expanding into a new area, and noted in Google’s own documentation as having been renamed from Awareness and consideration; and App promotion. Crucially, these objectives are scoped per campaign type, and a Search campaign offers only Sales, Leads and Website traffic, meaning there is no awareness objective available in a Search campaign at all, since awareness appears only on Display, Demand Gen and Video campaign types, while Performance Max offers only Sales and Leads. Every objective available in Search therefore presupposes that the person is already trying to accomplish something. Meta publishes six simplified objectives: Awareness, described as building awareness of a business and helping reach the largest number of people who are most likely to remember the ad; Traffic; Engagement; Leads; App promotion; and Sales, described as finding people likely to purchase goods or services. Meta’s first listed and broadest objective is therefore Awareness, described in terms of being remembered. The auctions are also triggered differently, since Meta states that when advertisers create ads they tell Meta who they want to show their ads to by defining a target audience, whereas Google’s equivalent trigger is the search term the person typed.Two objective trees, two different shapesAvailable in a Google Search campaignSalesLeadsWebsite trafficNo awareness objective exists here.Awareness appears only on Display, DemandGen and Video.Meta’s six objectives, in orderAwarenessTraffic, Engagement, LeadsApp promotion, SalesAwareness is defined as reaching “the largestnumber of people who are most likely toremember your ad.”The trigger differs too: a search term on one side, a target audience the advertiser defines on the other.
A Google Search campaign has no awareness objective. Meta's broadest objective is awareness, defined as being remembered. Source : Google Ads Help, About campaign objectives in Google Ads; Meta, How to choose the right ad objective in Meta Ads Manager (2026)

What Google actually judges, and the belief it contradicts

Start with the correction, because it changes how people spend their time.

Quality Score is not what determines your cost per click. Google states this in three places. On the Quality Score page itself: “Quality Score is not an input in the ad auction. It’s a diagnostic tool to identify how ads that show for certain keywords affect the user experience.” On its spending page: “Quality Score is an aggregated estimate of your overall performance in ad auctions, and isn’t used at auction time to determine Ad Rank.” And on its ad quality page: “these scores are not inputs in the ad auction.”

The same page also says: “Quality Score is not a key performance indicator and should not be optimized or aggregated with the rest of your data.”

That does not mean quality is irrelevant to price. It means the mechanism is different, and the real mechanism is more consequential. Ad quality enters the auction through Ad Rank thresholds, which Google describes as follows:

“Thresholds are determined dynamically at the time of each auction based on various factors, including: Your ad quality: To help maintain a high quality ad experience for consumers, lower quality ads have higher thresholds.”

And what a threshold does to your bill:

“If your ad is the only one that’s eligible to show, (for example, because none of your competitors meet their Ad Rank thresholds), you’ll pay the reserve price… This means that depending on your ad quality and Ad Rank thresholds your ad could be relatively expensive, even when no ads show immediately below it.”

Read that twice. You can be the only advertiser in an auction and still pay a lot, because the floor is set by your own quality.

The landing page criteria Google names. They are on the Ad Rank page, in one sentence, and this is the closest thing to a specification the platform publishes:

“the usefulness and relevance of your ad and landing page, the expectations users have about your landing page based on the clicked ad creative, ease of landing page navigation, as well as other Search Quality signals.”

Its practical guidance adds four items: give people what they are looking for, keep messaging consistent from ad to landing page, make the site mobile friendly, and improve loading speed. It also offers a proxy: “Try using conversion rate as a proxy for good landing page experience. It doesn’t impact your landing page status, but it can be a good way for you to measure and optimize.”

And a myth Google kills explicitly:

“Keep in mind, the word-for-word phrase from a search term doesn’t need to be on your landing page.”

Its example is a search for “South Chicago Chihuahua-friendly budget hotels”, which “doesn’t need to lead to a landing page with the headline ‘South Chicago Chihuahua-friendly budget hotels.’”

How advertising quality affects the price paid on Google, and the role of Quality ScoreHow advertising quality affects the price actually paid on Google Ads, and where the Quality Score metric sits in that mechanism. Google states on three separate documentation pages that Quality Score is not an input in the ad auction, describing it instead as a diagnostic tool measured on a scale from one to ten at the keyword level, evaluated by comparison with other advertisers whose ads showed for the exact same search over the last ninety days, and adding that it is not a key performance indicator and should not be optimized or aggregated with the rest of an advertiser’s data. Ad quality nonetheless affects price, through a different mechanism. Ad Rank is calculated from six factors, namely the bid, the quality of the ads and landing page, the Ad Rank thresholds, the competitiveness of the auction, the context of the person’s search, and the expected impact of assets and other ad formats. Ad Rank thresholds are determined dynamically at the time of each auction based on factors including ad quality, with Google stating that to help maintain a high quality ad experience for consumers, lower quality ads have higher thresholds, along with ad position, user signals and attributes such as location and device type, and the topic and nature of the search. The consequence for the bill is stated directly: the actual cost per click is calculated based on Ad Rank including the thresholds and competition from other advertisers, and if an ad is the only one eligible to show because no competitors meet their thresholds, the advertiser pays the reserve price, which is the threshold rounded up to the minimum billable unit, meaning that depending on ad quality and thresholds an ad could be relatively expensive even when no ads show immediately below it. Google separately states that higher quality ads typically cost less per click than lower quality ads, and that with low quality ads an advertiser may find the actual cost per click close to the maximum cost per click even when there is low competition.Two different things, routinely confusedQuality Score, 1 to 10”not an input in the ad auction""a diagnostic tool”Said on three separate Google pages.Ad Rank thresholds”lower quality ads have higher thresholds”They set the reserve price you pay.This is where quality reaches your bill.The consequence, in Google’s words”depending on your ad quality and Ad Rank thresholds your ad could be relatively expensive,even when no ads show immediately below it.”You can be the only advertiser in the auction and still pay a lot, because the floor is your own.
The 1 to 10 score is a diagnostic. Ad quality reaches your price through the threshold, which is your own floor. Source : Google Ads Help: About Quality Score, About Ad Rank, Ad Rank thresholds, Manage your spend, About ad quality (2026)

What Meta judges, and the sentence that should change your priorities

Meta reviews the page too, and says so: “This review process may include the specific components of an ad, such as images, video, text and targeting information, as well as an ad’s associated landing page or other destinations.”

But the harder statement is about what happens when nothing is actually against the rules:

“Lower quality ads which do not necessarily violate our policies may experience impacted performance.”

And its business-facing article puts a price on it:

“If advertisers repeatedly post policy violating or low-quality ads, our system may associate their Page, domain, ad account or other associated entities as lower-quality, making ads created from these entities less competitive in auctions.” “That means it will cost more and advertisers will see fewer results than if the ads did not contain these attributes and associations.”

Now the part that most directly changes how you build a social landing page. Meta lists the signals it monitors for ad quality, and two of them are on your site rather than in the feed:

“Hide ad / Hide all ads from this advertiser / Hide ad due to repetition / Report ad / Landing page bounce rate / Landing page dwell time”

So on Meta, how long someone stays on your page is an input to what your next impression costs. That is a more direct economic consequence than anything Google says about page speed in organic search.

Its published list of what makes a landing page experience low quality is equally specific: lacking substantive or original content, a disproportionate volume of ads relative to content, pop-ups and interstitials “that disrupt the user experience”, unexpected content experiences such as splitting an article across multiple pages, and misleading experiences about products, shipping times or support.

And on the ad side, three named failures that all produce a mismatch on arrival: withholding information “in order to entice someone to click a link to understand the full context of something”, sensationalized language that creates “an unexpected experience when people click to a landing page”, and engagement bait.

Signals Meta monitors for advertising quality and the economic consequence it publishesSignals that Meta states it monitors in order to measure advertising quality, and the economic consequence the company publishes for advertisers whose quality is judged low. Meta states that its ad review process may include the specific components of an ad such as images, video, text and targeting information, as well as an ad’s associated landing page or other destinations. It further states that lower quality ads which do not necessarily violate its policies may experience impacted performance, meaning the consequence does not require a rule to have been broken. Its business facing guidance states that if advertisers repeatedly post policy violating or low quality ads, its system may associate their Page, domain, ad account or other associated entities as lower quality, making ads created from these entities less competitive in auctions, and that this means it will cost more and advertisers will see fewer results than if the ads did not contain these attributes and associations. The signals Meta lists as monitored for ad quality are: hiding an ad, hiding all ads from that advertiser, hiding an ad due to repetition, reporting an ad, landing page bounce rate, and landing page dwell time. Two of those six signals are measured on the advertiser’s own website rather than in the feed, meaning that how long a visitor stays on a landing page is an input into what the next impression costs. Meta’s published list of attributes constituting a low quality landing page experience comprises lacking substantive or original content, a disproportionate volume of ads relative to content, pop up or interstitial ads that disrupt the user experience while excluding legally required disclosures and paywalls, unexpected content experiences such as spreading an article across multiple pages requiring several clicks, and misleading experiences that misrepresent products, expected shipping times or customer support. On the advertisement side Meta names three failures that produce a mismatch on arrival: withholding information in order to entice someone to click a link to understand the full context, sensationalized language creating an unexpected experience when people click through to a landing page, and engagement bait.Your page is part of the auctionThe consequence, without any rule being broken”Lower quality ads which do not necessarily violate our policies may experience impactedperformance.” And: “it will cost more and advertisers will see fewer results”.The six signals Meta listsHide adHide all ads from this advertiserHide ad due to repetitionReport adLanding page bounce rateLanding page dwell timeTwo of the six are measured on your site, not in the feedHow long someone stays is an input to what your next impression costs. Google says nothing this directabout organic page speed.
Bounce rate and dwell time are ad-quality signals. Low quality does not have to break a rule to make your ads cost more. Source : Meta, Introduction to the Advertising Standards; Meta Business Help Center, Best practices to improve ad quality and performance (2026)

The two reports are not counting the same thing

A recurring argument between a marketing team and a finance team starts here, and it is entirely explained by published defaults.

Google. The default click-through conversion window is 30 days. The default engaged-view window is 3 days, the default view-through window is 1 day, and windows can run from 1 to 90 days. On attribution models, Google has narrowed the field sharply: first click, linear, time decay and position-based “are no longer supported”, leaving data-driven, which is the default, and last click.

Meta. The standard settings are click-through at “1-day or 7-day after a link click”, view-through counting “events that occurred within 1-day after an impression of your ad”, and engage-through at 1 day after a non-link click, which includes a video played for five seconds.

Note what view-through means there: an impression, not a view of any particular duration. Someone who scrolled past your ad and bought the next day can be counted.

Meta itself warns against the comparison people habitually make: “Results cannot be compared in the Campaign Overview table across ad sets with different attribution models. Each attribution model uses different counting mechanisms, and comparing across different attribution models will lead to inaccurate conclusions.”

If Meta says that about two ad sets on the same platform, adding up Meta conversions and Google conversions into one number is worse.

One honest caveat. Meta’s live documentation no longer states which attribution setting is applied by default; the article that once did now redirects elsewhere. The widely repeated figure survives in search caches only. Read the setting in your own account rather than citing a number.

Default conversion counting rules published by each advertising platformDefault conversion counting rules published by each advertising platform, showing that the two systems do not count the same object. On Google, the default click through conversion window is thirty days, the default engaged view window is three days, and the default view through window is one day, with windows configurable anywhere from one to ninety days depending on the conversion source, and Google recommending windows of at least seven days because they provide a richer set of conversion data. Google also notes that changes apply only to conversions recorded from that day forward and are not retroactive. On attribution models Google has narrowed the field, stating that the first click, linear, time decay and position based models are no longer supported and that conversion actions using those deprecated models have been upgraded to data driven attribution, leaving data driven as the default model for most conversion actions and last click as the only other supported option. On Meta, the standard attribution settings are click through counting events that occurred within one day or seven days after a link click on the ad, view through counting events that occurred within one day after an impression of the ad, and engage through counting events that occurred within one day after a non link click action which includes a video played for five seconds or for ninety seven percent of the video where the video is shorter than five seconds. The view through window is therefore triggered by an impression rather than by a view of any particular duration, so a person who scrolled past an advertisement and purchased the following day can be counted. Meta itself warns that results cannot be compared across ad sets with different attribution models because each model uses different counting mechanisms and comparing across them leads to inaccurate conclusions. Meta’s live documentation no longer states which attribution setting applies by default, since the article that once did now redirects elsewhere, so the setting should be read in the account rather than cited from a secondary source.Two systems, two definitions of a conversionGoogle, published defaultsClick-through window30 daysEngaged-view window3 daysView-through window1 dayModels shipped: data-driven (default), last click.Meta, published standard settingsClick-through1 or 7 daysView-through, after an impressionnot after a view of any duration1 dayEngage-through1 dayMeta’s own warning”comparing across different attribution models will lead to inaccurate conclusions.” That is about twoad sets on one platform. Adding Meta and Google totals together is worse.
Thirty days against seven. A click against an impression. Meta warns against comparing across models on its own platform. Source : Google Ads Help, About conversion windows and About attribution models; Meta, About attribution models and attribution settings (2026)

Speed, and what Google actually claims for it

Both landing pages need to be fast, and the reasons differ, so it is worth getting the facts straight.

The three Core Web Vitals and their published thresholds, measured at the 75th percentile of page loads:

  • Largest Contentful Paint: good at 2,500 milliseconds or less, poor above 4,000.
  • Interaction to Next Paint: good at 200 milliseconds or less, poor above 500.
  • Cumulative Layout Shift: good at 0.1 or less, poor above 0.25.
Published Core Web Vitals thresholds and the metric replacement of March 2024Published Core Web Vitals thresholds and the metric replacement that took effect in March two thousand twenty four. Three metrics make up the Core Web Vitals. Largest Contentful Paint measures loading performance, with a good threshold of two thousand five hundred milliseconds or less, a needs improvement band above two thousand five hundred and up to four thousand milliseconds, and a poor threshold above four thousand milliseconds. Interaction to Next Paint measures interactivity, with a good threshold of two hundred milliseconds or less, a needs improvement band above two hundred and up to five hundred milliseconds, and a poor threshold above five hundred milliseconds. Cumulative Layout Shift measures visual stability, with a good threshold of zero point one or less, a needs improvement band above zero point one and up to zero point two five, and a poor threshold above zero point two five. All three are assessed at the seventy fifth percentile of page loads, segmented across mobile and desktop devices, such that if at least seventy five percent of page views meet the good threshold the site is classified as good for that metric, while if at least twenty five percent meet the poor threshold the site is classified as poor. The metric replacement is that Interaction to Next Paint officially became a Core Web Vital and replaced First Input Delay on the twelfth of March two thousand twenty four, with First Input Delay deprecated in that transition, so any guidance still citing First Input Delay is more than two years out of date. Google also warns that laboratory tools which load pages in a simulated environment without a user cannot measure Interaction to Next Paint because there is no user input, and points to Total Blocking Time as the laboratory proxy. On ranking, Google states that Core Web Vitals are used by its ranking systems but that good results in reporting tools do not guarantee top rankings, that there is more to page experience than Core Web Vitals scores alone, and that trying to get a perfect score just for search engine optimization reasons may not be the best use of an organization’s time.The published thresholds, at the 75th percentileMetricGoodNeeds workPoorLargest Contentful Paint2,500 msto 4,000 msover 4,000 msInteraction to Next Paint200 msto 500 msover 500 msCumulative Layout Shift0.1to 0.25over 0.25The change that dates old adviceInteraction to Next Paint replaced First Input Delay on 12 March 2024. Lab tools cannot measure it at all,because “there is no user input”. Total Blocking Time is the lab proxy.Google on ranking: “trying to get a perfect score just for SEO reasons may not be the best use of your time.”
Measured at the 75th percentile. Interaction to Next Paint replaced First Input Delay on 12 March 2024. Source : web.dev, Web Vitals and Defining the Core Web Vitals metrics thresholds; web.dev blog, INP becomes a Core Web Vital on March 12 (2025)

One update to note, because outdated advice is everywhere: Interaction to Next Paint replaced First Input Delay on 12 March 2024. Any guidance still citing First Input Delay is more than two years stale. Google also warns that lab tools cannot measure this metric at all, since “there is no user input”, and points to Total Blocking Time as the lab proxy.

On ranking, Google’s own answer is more measured than either camp usually admits:

“Core Web Vitals are used by our ranking systems… Keep in mind that getting good results in reports like Search Console’s Core Web Vitals report or third-party tools doesn’t guarantee that your pages will rank at the top of Google Search results… trying to get a perfect score just for SEO reasons may not be the best use of your time.”

So it is a ranking signal, and chasing a perfect score for search reasons is something Google explicitly discourages. Meanwhile, on the paid side, Google lists “improve loading speed” among its landing page recommendations, and Meta counts bounce rate and dwell time in ad quality. The commercial argument for speed is stronger than the search argument.

What follows for the two pages

The search page answers the question that was typed. Above the fold, in the visitor’s own terms, without requiring a scroll to confirm they are in the right place. Google’s “expectations users have about your landing page based on the clicked ad creative” is the criterion, and it is satisfied by continuity, not by repeating the keyword.

The social page earns the attention it interrupted. The visitor had no question. They need a reason to keep reading before anything is asked of them, which is precisely what dwell time measures and what bounce rate punishes. A page that opens with a form is optimizing against the signal the platform is watching.

Both pages must not contradict the ad. Google disapproves “inconsistencies between the ad and the landing page”, promotions “not relevant to the destination”, and offers “unavailable or aren’t easily found from the destination”. Meta names withholding information and sensationalized language for the same reason. The two platforms independently arrived at the same rule.

Redirects deserve care. Google specifically disapproves “redirects from the final URL that take the user to a different domain”, and requires the display URL domain to match the final URL.

And thin pages are a named problem. Google disapproves destinations with content “replicated from another source without adding value”, and those “solely designed to send users elsewhere”. Meta names lacking “substantive or original content”. A landing page consisting of a headline and a form qualifies under both descriptions.

The practical summary is short. Build one page that finishes a thought someone started, and another that starts a thought nobody asked for. Then read each platform’s own criteria rather than a benchmark, because neither platform publishes a benchmark, and every number you have seen for average conversion rate or average cost per click came from an agency describing its own client list. Building the two pages alongside the campaigns rather than after them is part of our B2B paid acquisition work, where the landing page counts as part of the buy instead of as something the client supplies.