What targeting actually works for dating vertical ads
-
I have been around dating campaigns long enough to notice one thing. Everyone talks about targeting, but very few people agree on what actually works. When I first got into Dating Vertical Ads, I assumed it was just about age, gender, and location. Set it up, push traffic, and wait for results. That idea didn’t last very long.
The first real pain point hit when my ads started getting impressions but barely any real engagement. Clicks were there, but signups were weak. Even worse, some traffic felt completely off. People clicking but clearly not interested in dating at all. That’s when I realized targeting for dating is not as simple as it looks on the surface.
One big challenge I kept running into was platform restrictions. Dating offers sit in a sensitive space. You can’t always target interests the way you want, and broad targeting can burn budget fast. I remember thinking maybe the offer itself was bad. But after talking with others in forums and comparing notes, it became clear that targeting was the real issue.
So I started experimenting. Nothing fancy. Just small changes. First thing I tried was narrowing down intent instead of demographics. Instead of asking who the user is, I started asking what they might be doing right now. Late night traffic performed very differently than daytime traffic. Weekends behaved nothing like weekdays. That alone made a noticeable difference.
Another thing I tested was separating campaigns by dating intent. Casual, serious, niche audiences. Mixing them all together was a mistake. When everything went into one bucket, the messaging never matched the user. Once I split campaigns and adjusted creatives slightly, engagement improved. Not magically, but enough to notice a pattern.
I also learned the hard way that over targeting can be just as bad as under targeting. At one point, I stacked too many filters. Age, device, location, time, interests. The traffic dried up, and costs went up. It felt safe, but it killed scale. Dating Vertical Ads need room to breathe, especially when algorithms are learning.
What surprised me most was how important placement testing became. Same targeting, different placements, totally different results. Some placements brought curious users who clicked but didn’t convert. Others brought fewer clicks but better quality. That taught me to stop judging campaigns too early based only on CTR.
One insight that stuck with me was focusing more on signals after the click. Tracking behavior on the landing page helped me understand whether targeting was off or the page needed work. Short sessions usually meant poor targeting. Longer sessions with no signup meant messaging issues. That distinction helped me stop guessing.
At some point, I started reading more practical breakdowns instead of generic advice. One resource that helped me think clearer about audience filtering and testing was this guide on Strategies for Dating Vertical Advertising. I didn’t copy anything directly, but it helped me organize my thinking and test more intentionally instead of randomly changing things.
Another thing worth mentioning is geography. Dating behavior changes a lot by region. What works in one country can completely flop in another. Even within the same country, urban and smaller cities behave differently. I now always test geo specific campaigns before scaling anything.
Creative and targeting are more connected than people admit. If your ad looks serious but your audience is browsing casually, it won’t land. Matching tone with intent made my targeting feel smarter without changing settings much.
If I had to sum it up, targeting for dating is less about perfect filters and more about observation. Watch patterns. Separate intents. Give campaigns time to learn. And don’t assume one setup fits all dating offers.
I still don’t think there is a single best targeting strategy. But there are smarter ways to test and fewer mistakes once you’ve burned through some budget and learned the hard lessons. Curious to hear what others have noticed, because this space keeps changing.