Feed and Story are two assets
Two versions cost one extra pass and hand whoever runs the account a second lever.
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 rather than tapped away.
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?
The tall one. Always.
Building vertical first and deriving the square from it is the order that works, because you can take a square out of a tall frame without losing the subject, and you cannot reliably do it the other way round. If you shoot and cut square first, the tall version has to be invented: you end up scaling the picture up until it goes soft, or filling the top and bottom with a colour block and a caption to hide the fact that there is no picture there. That order holds wherever the placements are these vertical ones; a horizontal cut for YouTube or a television, or a wide frame built around several people, is a separate deliverable with its own master rather than something pulled from the tall one.
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 rather than a remembered one.
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 actually changes between the two versions?
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.
What does not change is the argument. Same offer, same order of information, same reason to act. If the two versions are saying different things you have made two ads by accident, and neither of them will teach you anything when one of them wins.
Check both on a real phone before you spend anything
This is the shortest job in the post and the one that catches the most.
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.
Then post one to your own Story, privately or to a close friends list, and look at it where it will actually live. Every mistake in this article is obvious inside the real interface and invisible for weeks inside an editing timeline.
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.
It also gives you something to compare. If the tall version works and the square one does not, that is worth knowing, though on its own it does not tell you where your customers are: the tall one may simply be the better creative, or have been served to a different slice, or fitted its placement better. It costs one extra export to surface the difference, and a proper test to explain it.
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.
Keep reading
This is a service, and the method is written down.
Everything above came out of doing the work rather than writing about it. If you want the method instead of the story, it runs in order on one page.
Start with a free audit
Tell us where your content is now. We will come back with what we would change and what result to expect.
A person reads the channel and writes the audit by hand: a considered read typically takes three working days. That is the usual shape, not a promised turnaround. We use these details only to reply to you: no lists, no lurking.
What you will get
A fit snapshot: where your channel stands, and whether we are a match.
Two to three opportunities: specific, prioritised, yours to keep.
A recommended next step, even if that step is not us.
The audit is free and commits you to nothing: nobody follows up with a call you did not ask for.