Ask These Questions Before Using Value Rules

Ask these questions before using value rules.

So value rules are an enormously useful feature that Meta introduced in 2025. The problem is that advertisers are using them far more often than they should be.

I wish I could say that was a surprising development, but it was something that worried me about the feature from the beginning.

Today I want to lay out two very specific situations when you should consider using them.

Before we get there, an explanation is in order.

Value rules allow advertisers to bid more or less for specific criteria. As I record this, possible criteria includes age, gender, device platform, mobile operating system, location, audiences, conversion location, and placement.

So you could create value rules to tell Meta to bid more for people between 35 and 54 or less for people in certain countries. That way, you can influence delivery without adding unnecessary restrictions.

But the problem, as I mentioned at the top, is that advertisers use them far more often than they should.

This isn’t surprising because advertisers do the same thing with restricting by age or gender or placement or something else. It’s only logical that they’d adjust bids with value rules when they shouldn’t, too.

The reason this is a problem is because value rules, by nature of what they do, intentionally increase costs.

Why would you intentionally increase costs unless it’s truly necessary?

So let’s talk about the two primary questions you should be asking yourself to determine whether value rules are truly necessary.

First, do you have information that Meta doesn’t?

In other words, Meta is working with mounds and mounds of data, both associated with your business and countless other businesses and people. You should prioritize letting Meta use that data to get you the most and best results.

But there are times when value rules can be useful because even with all of that data, Meta doesn’t know something that you do.

One example would be lead value.

If you optimize for leads while using broad targeting, Meta is only focused on getting you the most leads possible within your budget. Meta doesn’t care about the quality of those leads, but you do.

Something I’ve seen is that a high percentage of my budget will be spent on people over the age of 65. Why? Because, for whatever reason, Meta can get cheaper leads that way.

But I know, because I have data that Meta doesn’t, that those are generally low-quality leads that rarely become paying customers.

While I don’t want to exclude that group entirely because a small percentage of people over the age of 65 will buy, I also don’t want Meta spending 40% of my budget there.

So I’ll use a value rule to lower the bid on people in that age group. That way, Meta may still spend a small amount there, but while reflecting a more natural distribution based on the expected age of my customers.

Another example of data you have that Meta doesn’t is customer lifetime value.

Even when optimizing for a purchase or value of purchases, Meta will be focused entirely on that specific purchase. So if you can get a high volume of purchases from men at a low cost even though women have proven to represent a higher lifetime value, Meta doesn’t care.

More will be spent on men to get you more purchases within your budget because you have information that Meta doesn’t.

To fix this, you might apply a value rule to bid less on men or more on women, whichever you prefer. For the record, I tend to bid less on the less desirable group.

So the first question you should ask is whether you have information that Meta doesn’t.

But the reality is that this alone doesn’t require value rules as a solution. There also needs to be a clear problem.

Before you create a value rule, ask yourself: “What is the problem to be solved here?”

And is that problem proven in meaningful data?

The fact that people over 65 represent low-quality leads isn’t enough by itself to apply a value rule. Because unless Meta is actually spending a large percentage of my budget there, there is no problem to be solved.

The same goes for our example related to women representing a higher customer lifetime value than men.

If Meta isn’t spending more on men, there’s no problem that can be solved with a value rule. Without that problem, you’re intentionally impacting costs for no reason.

And impacting costs for no reason is exactly the kind of micromanagement that I warn advertisers about.

Don’t restrict your audience unless it’s absolutely necessary. Don’t apply a value rule to impact bids unless there’s a proven problem to be solved.

But I see it over and over again.

Value rules created to increase the bid on people in a certain age group or in certain cities because an advertiser knows these are the people most likely to buy.

But ask yourself: “Do you have information that Meta doesn’t here?”

Have you found that Meta is wasting money outside of these age groups and locations? Is there a clear problem to be solved?

Or are you simply applying a value rule to increase your bids in an attempt to influence Meta to value the people you believe are most important?

When Meta may already know this and may prioritize them without spending more.

Your need to tweak and tinker and control things may unintentionally drive up your costs.

So here’s the bottom of the glass.

Value rules are a very useful feature, but only when they’re necessary.

Before creating and applying a value rule, ask yourself two important questions.

“Do you have information that Meta doesn’t?”

And if you do, “Is there a clear problem to be solved that’s backed in data?”

You don’t need to lower bids on Audience Network if Meta isn’t wasting money there. You don’t need to raise bids on your target customers in a certain age group if Meta is already focused on that group.

These are the same mistakes advertisers make with restrictions, and they carry over to value rules.

Don’t try to control things unless it’s completely necessary.