New video 4★ Top performer95% of delivery
- Spend
- $181.07
- Post eng.
- 8,449
- Reach
- 13,629
- Impressions
- 23,968
- Clicks
- 151
- CPC
- $1.20
Sierra Services · Paid SocialMeta Ads
New Videos 2026 — Engagement Campaign Report
All-time performance for the two video engagement campaigns run on Facebook & Instagram: the Whistler and Squamish audiences, broken down to each individual reel.
Whistler
Squamish
Flight · Jun 16, 2026 – Jun 29, 2026
4 reels each · same creative set
Plus · creative comparison vs Spring Clean-up
Combined totals
Total spend$287.09
Reach22,392across both towns*
Impressions40,003
Clicks (all)206
Blended CPC$1.39
Post engagements14,476
Whistler vs Squamish
Whistler
Jun 16, 2026 → Jun 29, 2026 · 14 active days
- Spend
- $190.41
- Reach
- 13,784
- Impressions
- 25,331
- Clicks (all)
- 158
- CPC
- $1.21
- CTR
- 0.62%
- Post engagements
- 9,016
- CPM
- $7.52
Reached more people at a lower cost. At $1.21 per click and 0.62% CTR, the Whistler audience engaged more efficiently than Squamish.
Squamish
Jun 16, 2026 → Jun 29, 2026 · 14 active days
- Spend
- $96.68
- Reach
- 8,608
- Impressions
- 14,672
- Clicks (all)
- 48
- CPC
- $2.01
- CTR
- 0.33%
- Post engagements
- 5,460
- CPM
- $6.59
Solid engagement but pricier traffic. CPC ran $2.01 ($0.81 higher than Whistler) and CTR was about half, so each click cost more to earn.
Every reel, side by side
How to read this
New video 4 outperformed the rest by a wide margin. All four reels sat in the same ad set, so Meta tested them head-to-head. It identified New video 4 as the clear winner within the first days and pushed nearly all of the delivery to it. That concentration is deliberate: the platform funnels budget to the top performer on purpose, to get the most engagement out of every dollar. The share bar on each reel shows how the delivery landed.
We can force budget onto a specific reel any time we want to guarantee it airtime. In most cases, though, letting Meta decide produces stronger results, and here the winner was unmistakable.
Whistler
New video 4★ Top performer
New video 3
New video 2
New video 1Squamish
New video 4★ Top performer95% of delivery
- Spend
- $92.25
- Post eng.
- 5,113
- Reach
- 8,448
- Impressions
- 13,908
- Clicks
- 45
- CPC
- $2.05
New video 3New video 2New video 1What the numbers say
1
Whistler was the more efficient audience
$1.21 per click vs $2.01 in Squamish, and nearly double the click-through rate. The same creative simply converted attention to clicks more cheaply in Whistler.
2
The test found a clear winner
Running four reels let Meta's optimisation pick the strongest, and New video 4 won decisively in both towns. That is now your proven creative to lead with and scale in the next flight.
3
A short, concentrated flight
Both ran 14 days, Jun 16–Jun 29, then paused. Combined that delivered 40,003 impressions and 14,476 post engagements for $287.09.
4
Engagement, not conversions, was the goal
These were engagement-objective campaigns, so the strong signal is reach and post engagement (14,476 combined). Clicks are a secondary read; there is no purchase or lead tracking on these.
Compared with the last Whistler video ads
Read this first
You asked how the strongest Whistler ad stacks up against the most recent property-services videos. Those are Spring Clean-up V2 and V3, the two newest creatives in LPV | Spring Clean-up 2026 | Whistler. They ran the same way this campaign did: Facebook and Instagram stories and reels, the same Whistler radius, near-identical age targeting. Over their first 14 days New video 4 and V3 even landed on their audiences at the same rate, roughly 1.8 views per person, so neither ad was more worn out than the other.
One difference matters, and it shapes everything below. The Spring Clean-up ads were told to optimise for landing page views; this campaign was told to optimise for post engagement. Meta therefore showed them to different people, chasing different actions. Metrics about the video itself, like how long people watch, are a fair creative test. Metrics about clicks are not, and the Spring Clean-up ads win those on purpose. Both are shown.
Because the flights were different lengths (14 days vs 47), everything below defaults to each ad's first 14 delivery days. Switch to the full flight with the toggle. The gap barely moves, which tells us it is the creative and not the calendar.
5.3×
better hold rate
12.20% of plays reach 15 seconds, against 2.31% for the best Spring Clean-up ad
7.7×
cheaper attention
$0.06 to hold someone 15 seconds, against $0.48
3×
longer average watch
6s per play, against 2s, on a video nearly twice as long
How long people actually watched
Share of video plays still watching at each point, measured in real seconds. A longer video has to hold attention for longer to score the same, so this is plotted on elapsed time rather than percent of the video.
New video 4 (43.3s)Spring Clean-up V3 (24.4s)Spring Clean-up V2 (24.4s)
Meta reports each quarter-mark independently, so a line can tick up slightly when viewers skip forward.
| Metric |
|
 |
 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spend | $181.07$181.07 | $66.21$228.89 | $66.36$228.82 |
| People reached | 13,62913,629 | 3,4299,278 | 2,8848,013 |
| Impressions | 23,96823,968 | 6,03620,818 | 7,47927,042 |
| Frequency | 1.76×1.76× | 1.76×2.24× | 2.59×3.37× |
| Cost per 1,000 impressions | $7.55$7.55 | $10.97$10.99 | $8.87$8.46 |
| Video plays | 23,69823,698 | 5,92819,073 | 7,34225,300 |
| Held past 15 seconds1 | 2,8922,892 | 137462 | 102463 |
| Hold rate past 15s1 | 12.20%12.20% | 2.31%2.42% | 1.39%1.83% |
| Cost per 15s hold | $0.06$0.06 | $0.48$0.50 | $0.65$0.49 |
| Average watch time | 6s6s | 2s2s | 1s2s |
| Post engagements | 8,4498,449 | 9763,157 | 4961,970 |
| Cost per engagement | $0.021$0.021 | $0.068$0.073 | $0.134$0.116 |
| Shares | 1919 | 23 | —— |
| Saves | 55 | —1 | —— |
| Reactions | 6969 | 27 | —3 |
| Link clicks | 2121 | 140469 | 76288 |
| Landing page views2 | —— | 135421 | 64240 |
| Cost per landing page view2 | —— | $0.49$0.54 | $1.04$0.95 |
1 Meta calls this a ThruPlay: the viewer watched at least 15 seconds, or finished the video if it was shorter. All three videos run past 15 seconds, so it compares cleanly.
2 Landing page views are only counted for the Spring Clean-up ads. They were built to send people to the website; New video 4 was built to be watched and has no landing page optimisation behind it. This is the one column where the older creative is genuinely ahead.
The finding
New video 4 does not just win, it wins in the hardest possible place. It is 43.3s against V3's 24.4s, so every retention milestone is a bigger ask. Even so, over its first 14 days 6.40% of its plays reach the 32-second mark, while only 5.03% of V3's plays reach 12 seconds. More people sit through half a minute of the new creative than sit through twelve seconds of the old one. It also picked up 19 shares and 5 saves, against 2 shares and no saves for V2 and V3 combined.
New video 4 is also the ad Meta chose. It absorbed 95% of the Whistler campaign's delivery because the platform found the winner early, which is the same behaviour described further up this report.
Why the click numbers look so different
Spring Clean-up V3 sent 135 people to the website in its first 14 days, at $0.49 each. New video 4 produced 21 link clicks and no measured landing page views at all.
This is a difference in how the two campaigns were set up, not a difference in the creative. The Spring Clean-up campaign was built and optimised to drive landing page views, so Meta deliberately showed those ads to the people most likely to tap through to the website, and counted every visit that followed. This campaign was built and optimised for post engagement, so Meta showed New video 4 to the people most likely to watch and interact with it, and there is no landing page tracking behind it. Neither ad was ever asked to do the other one's job.
Read-only snapshot
Source: Meta Marketing API · account “Sierra Services” (act_1121241948810378)
*Reach is summed across the two town audiences; overlap is minimal as the geos differ.