Neutral event names for Facebook conversions: do they change how you optimise? (what we know and don't)

Here's a genuine question, because I don't think anyone has the full answer, and I'd rather lay out what I know than pretend.

If you rename health-related events to neutral codes, like L_1 for a lead or S_1 for a booking, the name stops revealing anything. That's the point. It's one of the ways to stop leaking a treatment through the event name.

But it raises a fair worry. Does a neutral name change how you optimise? Do you lose the convenience of familiar event names in your reporting? Do campaigns behave differently?

Let me separate three different questions, because they get mixed up.

Question one: does matching still work? What I can say honestly: matching relies mostly on who the person is and which ad they clicked, not on the event's name. So sending a hashed email and phone plus the ad click still lets the platforms match the conversion to the right person. That part I'm fairly confident about.

Question two: does optimisation behave differently? This is where I'd be careful. I don't have a controlled study across many accounts showing how delivery changes when event names are neutralised. Anyone who tells you they know for certain is guessing, and I'd rather say that than dress a guess up as a fact.

Question three: does reporting get harder? Yes, a little, and that one is fixable. If L_1 is a lead and S_1 is a booking, you need a small map somewhere. Put it in a shared note and in the naming of your reports, so nobody has to remember.

So here's how I'd test it, if I were a clinic. Change one campaign first, not all of them. Keep a written map of your codes in one place. Run it for a few weeks. Compare cost per booked consultation before and after, not cost per lead, because cost per lead is the number that can mislead. And write down what you expected before you look, so you don't rationalise afterwards.

And keep the alternative in view. The alternative to neutral names isn't "full data and great performance". For a lot of clinics the alternative is events being blocked or stripped, match quality dropping, cost per lead climbing and campaigns stalling. Sending a neutral event can be better than sending a descriptive one that gets held back.

If you want to try neutral event names, here's a template for the map. Put it in a shared note and keep it current.

L_1: a lead, meaning someone submitted an enquiry. S_1: a booking, meaning someone scheduled a consultation. A_1: an attended appointment, meaning the person showed up. P_1: a paid stage, meaning a treatment or package was paid for.

Then name your reports and audiences with the same codes, so nobody has to translate. Write next to each code which real-world step it stands for and who decided that. It sounds bureaucratic, and it saves a lot of confusion three months later when someone new opens Ads Manager and wonders what S_1 means.

For the test itself: pick one campaign, note its numbers for the previous four weeks, switch its events to the codes, and compare the following four weeks on cost per booked consultation. Make one change at a time. If something moves, you'll know which change did it. Then decide whether to roll the rest out.

If you've tried neutral names: what happened? Did anything get worse? Did anything get better?

For reference, in DataCops health mode the page link is cut to the domain, events go out as neutral codes like L_1 and S_1, and only hashed email and phone plus the ad click are attached. Every conversion gets a row in a delivery log, so you can see what left.