So I’ve been experimenting with relationship ads lately, and one thing I keep coming back to is whether geo targeting really makes a big difference. It sounds smart on paper—showing ads to people in a specific area instead of blasting them everywhere—but I wasn’t sure how much it would actually matter in practice.

When I first started running these kinds of ads, I made the rookie mistake of going too broad. I figured the more people who saw the ad, the better the chance of getting responses. But honestly, that approach felt like pouring money into a bottomless pit. Tons of impressions, very few clicks that actually led anywhere meaningful. It was like trying to strike up a conversation in a giant crowded stadium—you’re shouting, but hardly anyone is listening.

The big pain point for me was that most people seeing the ads weren’t even in the same city as the people the ad was meant for. Imagine advertising a local matchmaking service in Mumbai and getting clicks from Delhi or even outside India. That’s money burned.

Out of curiosity, I narrowed things down and tried geo targeting by city. The difference was surprisingly noticeable. Suddenly, instead of random clicks from all over, I started getting engagement from people who were actually in the right location. The volume was smaller, yes, but the quality went way up. It was like finally talking to people who were actually interested in the same party you were inviting them to.

One thing I did learn the hard way is that going too narrow can backfire. I once tried setting the radius too tight around a single neighborhood, and the ad barely moved. Hardly any impressions at all. So it seems like the trick is finding that middle ground—specific enough to be relevant but not so small that nobody sees it.

What worked best for me was running multiple small campaigns instead of one huge blanket one. For example, instead of one ad for “all of Bangalore,” I tried splitting it into smaller areas within the city. That way I could test which neighborhoods responded more and shift my budget accordingly. It’s a bit more work upfront, but I felt like the data it gave me was worth it.

Another little thing I noticed: the wording of the ad needs to match the local vibe. If you’re running relationship ads in Chennai, for example, the tone that connects might feel different than what works in Delhi. Even something as simple as the language style or mentioning a familiar landmark makes the ad feel less generic and more like it’s actually meant for them.

I’m not saying I’ve cracked the perfect formula here, but geo targeting gave me a much better sense of control over who was seeing the ads. It saved me from wasting budget on clicks that couldn’t possibly turn into anything useful.

If you’re curious to dig deeper, I found this article that breaks it down in a practical way: Geo-Targeted Campaigns for Matchmaking Ads. It gave me a few ideas I hadn’t thought of before, like testing ad copy across different localities.

At the end of the day, I’d say geo targeting is definitely worth experimenting with if you’re running relationship ads. Just be ready to play around with the settings, test different areas, and accept that you won’t get it perfect the first time. Think of it less like a one-time fix and more like tuning a radio until you hit the clear station.

Would love to hear if anyone else here has played around with geo targeted relationship ads. Did you find that smaller, localized campaigns worked better, or did you stick with broader targeting?