Feed and Story are two assets

You had one ad made. It is square, because square goes everywhere, and everywhere is where you want it. So it goes into the feed, into Stories, into Reels, into whatever else the platform offers, and the campaign starts.

In the feed it looks fine. In a Story it sits in a band across the middle of the screen with grey above it and grey below it, next to somebody's holiday video that fills the whole phone. Nothing has malfunctioned. You are simply advertising in a letterbox.

The fix is not a better crop. It is admitting these are two assets.

Why does one file waste the placement?

Because the two placements are different shapes and different behaviours, not different sizes of the same thing.

A Story or a Reel takes the full height of the phone. It is the only thing on screen and it is dismissed with a tap. A feed post sits in a column with other posts above and below it, gets a square or a slightly tall rectangle, and is scrolled past.

Put a square into the full-height space and most of the screen goes to nothing, a band of picture with grey above and below. Put a full-height video into the feed and its preview card crops the top and bottom away to a squarer shape, so whatever you placed in those strips is gone before anybody taps in to watch it full. Nothing is shrunk and being tall is not penalised, the feed simply shows a squarer window onto it; what you lose is the part of the frame the card cannot fit, which is why the feed version wants its own framing rather than a crop decided by the platform.

Which version do you build first?

Choose the starting composition for the campaign’s main use, and plan the other required formats before production.

For a campaign centred on vertical placements, building tall first can be useful. Check that the feed version still has the information it needs; a crop from a tall frame can lose the subject too. Other campaigns may need separately composed masters.

The platform will offer to do this reframing for you, and for a quick post it is fine; the reason to do it by hand is that the subject and the first frame are decisions, not a centre-crop. Where the platform's own buttons and safe areas sit moves often enough to be worth checking against the current layout each time.

If somebody is filming for you, this decision happens on the day. Frame with room above and below the subject, keep the action away from the far left and far right, and both versions exist in the same take. It costs nothing at the shoot and it costs an afternoon afterwards.

Where does the interface eat your frame?

At the top and the bottom, and more than you expect.

Every placement has furniture drawn over the picture: an account name, a caption, a call to action bar, a profile photo, the phone's own clock and battery. On a full-height placement the top strip and the bottom strip belong to the platform, not to you, and the bottom is worse because that is where the button sits and where a thumb rests.

So the working rule is that text and faces live in the middle of the frame, well inside the edges, and nothing you need read sits in the outer bands. Your offer, your one legible sentence, the face doing the talking: those go in the safe middle. Decoration can live at the edges, because losing decoration to a caption bar costs nothing.

The square version has a different problem. It is smaller on screen, so the same text is physically harder to read. Text sized for a full-height Story is often too small in the feed, which means the second version is a resize of the words as well as of the picture.

What the second version changes

More than the outline, less than a rebuild.

The picture changes, because the subject has to be repositioned shot by shot rather than left where the tall version put it. The text changes size and usually shortens, because a shorter line survives a smaller frame. The first frame changes, since what a scrolling eye lands on in a busy column is not what it lands on when the ad owns the whole screen.

Keep the campaign’s promise consistent. Versions may emphasise it differently for their placements; if both message and format change, the result does not isolate which change mattered.

Check both on a real phone before you spend anything

This is the shortest job in the post.

Send both files to yourself and watch them on the phone rather than on the laptop where they were made. Look for four things: text sitting under the interface, text too small to read at arm's length, a subject that leaves the frame, and a first frame that says nothing on its own.

Preview each asset in the intended placement, using the campaign tools where available. An organic Story can help check appearance, but it does not reproduce every ad overlay or placement.

What does the second version buy you?

A lever, which is the part that matters to whoever is spending the money.

With both assets in hand, the platform can place the ad wherever it performs and the account can be told to use both placements. With one asset, that choice is made for you, and it is usually made by whichever placement your single file happens to fit. That is a decision about where your money goes, taken by a crop.

The results can reveal a difference worth investigating, but creative, placement and audience may all contribute. Allow for the work needed to compose both versions and design a suitable comparison.

The next question is whether your existing ads have a tall version at all, or whether you have been running one asset and calling it a campaign. That is a folder check rather than a strategy meeting, and it is answered this afternoon.

Sources and evidence

What here is a platform fact and what is our own production method. Platform behaviour was checked on 4 September 2026.

Standards and platform facts. Meta's own guidance on aspect ratios across placements confirms that different placements support and recommend different ratios rather than one shape stretched to fit, and its guidance on text overlays and the safe zone for Stories and Reels sets out that key creative should stay clear of the bands at the top and bottom of a full-height placement, where interface elements sit. Both pages are Meta's own and specific to Meta's placements; this piece's claim that the same logic holds wherever a feed and a full-height placement sit side by side is this studio's extension of it, not something Meta states about every platform.

Our method. Plan the required placements, compose each version for its use and check the actual previews before launch. Vertical-first is one useful workflow where the campaign calls for it.

References.

• Meta. Text overlays and safe zones. facebook.com. Key creative should remain within placement-safe areas. Placement guidance changes.
• Meta. Best practices for aspect ratios across placements. facebook.com. Different placements support and recommend different ratios. Recommendations change and are placement-specific.