They spent $240 and got no new customers. The $240 itself is irrelevant, the return on investment is what matters.
Perhaps they will next spend $250 on photocopied flyers and get 500 new customers. Perhaps they will then spend $1000 on a quarter page color ad in a local paper and get 10 new customers. None of these raw amounts have any bearing on whether Facebook costs $240 for getting no customers. What matters is whether there is a return in the investment for the ad campaign.
The implication that it is better to spend $240 on an ineffective campaign than spending more than $240 on a better campaign is not a reasonable comparison.
Of course the campaign was not completely ineffective. It cost them $240 to find out that Facebook campaigns did not provide a good return in their specific case. This may or may not be applicable to other businesses. Apparently GM has reached the same conclusion with $10 million in ad money. The Pizza place is smart, they were able to come to GM's conclusions for their own case, but it cost them a lot less to learn this information than it costed GM.
"new customers" is not a valid metric for a restaurant or a pizza place. You want new customers, sure - if you are a small place just starting up. What's important though is repeat customers. Perhaps if they marketed to people who 'like' them on facebook, those customer would more frequently visit that restaurant, thus increasing revenue. Just because they got no new customers doesn't necessarily make the campaign a flop.
The $240 itself is irrelevant, the return on investment is what matters.
I disagree ($240 might represent the entirety of their marketing budget for now, so the ROI on flyers could be moot), but regardless, parent did not mention ROI at all.
