A falling cost per thousand impressions reads as an efficiency win. Sometimes it means the platform ran out of real people to show your ad to.
Cost per thousand impressions falling is treated as an unambiguous win: the platform found a cheaper way to reach people, so spend goes further. A price dropping in any market can mean that same good thing, more competitive supply, or something else entirely: real demand for that inventory just isn't there anymore.
A CPM that doubled from roughly $20 to $45 read, on the dashboard, as a cost increase worth investigating. It coincided with a genuine expansion into new, real audience. The opposite pattern, CPMs cratering alongside an unusually high click-through rate, has separately shown up paired with bot traffic rather than a real efficiency gain. Same metric, same direction of surprise, opposite explanations.
One practitioner's working range treats $40 to $50 CPMs as roughly where genuinely converting campaigns tend to live for a given account and vertical, with anything dramatically cheaper worth a second look rather than a celebration. That range isn't a universal rule, every account and vertical differs, but the framing underneath it holds generally: CPM describes what the platform charged for attention, not what happened after someone paid it. Reading it as a performance number instead of a market-price signal is where the mistake starts.