6 comments

• 

  Berkeley

  1 year ago

  I think the real story here is that the flyer with 10,000 impressions got clicked twice. Thats what Facebook should be worrying about...and there lack of privacy controls...
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Herbel

  1 year ago

  Wow, those are some bad CTRs. I have a feeling that it is largely related to the type of ads those are. "Save money with..." and "Get paid to shop at..." sound like the type of ads that people find horribly annoying. I would think that those ads would have fairly bad CTRs regardless of where they advertise. Not to mention that I'd be willing to bet the demographic of Facebook is not the type to click on those types of ads anway.
  As a sidenote, and somewhat of a plug, I just ran an experiment last week to test out the new targeting options they have for flyers. I ended with a CTR of a bit under 2%, which I thought was a bit high for my ad, but lower than I thought was the norm (which I was thinking was closer to 3-4%).
  reply
• 

  Chris Kennedy

  1 year ago

  Jeremy: do you mean 0.02% or 2%? Big difference there. Do you have a write-up somewhere? I'm doing some Flyer experiments as well.
  
  When you're analyzing flyer data, you need to be careful as Facebook's algorithm is nuanced and self-adapting. In this case the affiliate marketer is strategically purchasing their flyers to minimize the CPC they have to pay (thereby maximizing profit). This can be done by creating large numbers of flyers and setting a low maximum CPC that is quickly reached. You're missing the point if you focus on CTR.
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Herbel

  1 year ago

  Chris: It was 1.073% (I had misremembered it as 1.7, hence why I said a bit under 2). There's a basic writeup with the results at the link below.
  http://www.southboard.com/blogger/2007/10/exper...
  
  I see what you mean about using multiple flyers in order to maximize the efficiency of the CPC, rather than focusing on CTRs. At the same time, though, paying attention to the CTR can be important to guage the effectiveness of the ad. If no one is clicking on it, it doesn't matter that it only cost you 5 bucks. Your money would be better spent trying to maximize how many people actually click on your ad, and can therefore be potential conversions, rather than just looking at ways to save on the CPC. If your ad is seen close to 10k times, and only one person clicked it, I'd think that you need to reevaluate what your ad is.
  reply
• 

  Jeremy Herbel

  1 year ago

  Apologies if this posts twice, as I typed it up once and hit submit, only to have it disapear.
  
  Chris: The exact amount was 1.073% (I had said a bit under 2% before as I misremembered it as 1.7). But yes, there would be a big difference between 2 and .02. I have something of a writeup with the results at the link below. It was more for humor than actual research, but it's still there.
  http://www.southboard.com/blogger/2007/10/exper...
  
  As for looking at CTRs and CPCs, I can see your point, but I'm not sure how much weight it'd have. While I understand that it makes sense to look at the CPC in order to maximize the efficiency of your money, if no one is clicking on the ads, it doesn't really matter. You may only spend a few bucks onthe compaign, and have it seen by tens of thousands of people, but it doesn't do you any good if your ad sucks and no one is clicking on it. The CTR is a good indication of the effectiveness of the ad. If you have a horrible CTR, then the potential to have conversions from the campaign would be incredibly low. I'd much rather have fewer impressions and a higher CTR. That means that my ad is effective, and that the clicks are more likely to be converted.
  reply
• 

  markus941

  1 year ago

  While it's true that those particular ads were probably not very compelling, I've tested a number of laser-targeted ads for very specific demographics - they haven't fared much better.
  
  And these are just CTR rates - we're not even getting to conversions.
  reply