The costs of advertising only get counted when you do lousy advertising.

When you place an ad, and you get a great response, the costs are never considered, but place a lousy ad, getting little response, then the cost is alarming.

Therefore the task is to be sufficiently compelling to a targeted audience to bring a quality response, then the cost is not considered,  because you get an outcome that (presumably) makes commercial sense.

My son recently sold a car on line, it was a good car, but not one that would be for everyone. He thought  he would just put up an ad, and it would just sell, easy, because it was a good car, and the price offered good value.

Failure, this first ad got almost no response, and those that did respond were not interested in the car, just getting it at half the advertised price.

We had another shot at writing an ad, putting in much more detail, and then placed it more specifically to attract a specialised buyer, one to whom the particular characteristics of the car beyond the provision of a transport device would be of value.

It got a number of responses, several very good ones, and it sold very quickly at the full price.

The cost of the second ad was irrelevant, but he is still complaining about the first placement.