If you look at the communication, it seems that the Ad people didn't have a clear idea how well-targeted anything was.
It's easy to see how the statistical problems compound.
FB does not have exact earning levels, so you have to infer that from, say, likes. Let's say you can build a model salary(likeBMW, likeTravel, ...) = %likeBMW + %likeTravel +...
This gives you an estimate which is (70-80)% accurate, so you predict >£250k/yr 70pc of the time. In c. 25% you mispredict.
Now it seems to me that this 25% is going to compound across several categories: when you say "College AND HighEarner AND ..." you get more than 50% of your target group not matching this exact criteria (all you need to fail is one condition to fail to match this conjunction).
And according to FB comms, it looks like >50% didn't match client's chosen criteria.
I think this is the right analysis of the issue. ML systems of this kind are very bad at making targeted judgements. It's really little more accurate than guessing the mean of something (eg., salary) for your group.
All ML has to do, for FB/Google/etc. is improve targeting a few percent to have a significant value proposition.
However, the propaganda has it that ML systems can "target" you, etc. Only in the way a nuclear bomb "targets" a house.