It's not about clicks or traffic. The real issue is selection effect vs. advertising effect

SEO traffic benchmarks don't measure the right ting or show real ROI. FB or Google don't want you to measure the right thing.

Traffic to the website has licks, purchases and downloads that are happening anyway (selection effect) and clicks, purchases and downloads that would not have happened without ads (advertising effect) mixed. Only way to differentiate between the two is do real experiment where you divide target groups in two sections and show only the other group the ads.

When you do this experiment correctly, you find out that online ads are usually wasted money for any established brand and lower than expected value for less known brands.

These are pretty easy to measure on Google or FB with their "lift study" tools and a conversion pixel. The lift tools will let you create a holdout group of X% of people who should be targeted by your ad. They won't see the ad, but you can still measure the rate at which they convert on your site. Then, you can compare that conversion rate to the rate of people who actually saw/clicked the ad.

Conversion pixels are never 100% accurate (and are becoming increasingly inaccurate due to browser/OS changes) and shouldn't be used to say "This ad generated exactly X sales that wouldn't have happened otherwise!", but you can examine the relative rates from people who saw or didn't see your campaign.

I've also seen companies who don't trust FB/G to grade their own homework on a known lift study, so they measure the effect by running PSA ads. Their ad campaign will be something like "Donate to charity XYZ!" but will be set to measure purchases on their website. That lets them establish the baseline purchase rate of the customers in their audience.

>These are pretty easy to measure on Google or FB with their "lift study" tools and a conversion pixel.

I hate that Facebook and Google have normalized this invasion of privacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_tracking

This was normalized on the web long before these companies started - they're just the best to do it (though Google did acquire one of the earliest players in DoubleClick).

The term "conversion pixel" is a misnomer these days for a Javascript snippet or API call - the concept predates JS and used to refer to a 1x1 transparent GIF.

Anyways, that generation of tech is being pushed out due to browser privacy enhancements and will be replaced with privacy-protecting browser and server APIs that introduce noise to the data, such that you can still measure the directional/relative impact of advertising without being able to tell exactly who converted.

There are a few competing industry proposals involving differential privacy/cryptography/blockchain/fixed entropy that are being publicly discussed here: https://github.com/w3c/web-advertising

> They won't see the ad, but you can still measure the rate at which they convert on your site.

This sounds like such an assumption. There's no guarantee that any one person will ever "convert" on your site. That's such an ugly carrot that FB/G are dangling in front of you. "If you spend enough money with us, we'll eventually show your ad to someone that will absolutely buy your product. Pinky swear, just keep putting coins in the slot to continue".

Let me explain it a little differently with a hypothetical scenario.

You set up an ad campaign with an audience of 100k people who are already on your mailing list.

You set up a conversion pixel and run the ads. Let's say that Google's tools say that 10% of people who saw the ad converted. That's incredible! But considering that they were already on your mailing list, maybe they were going to buy anyways - or maybe your TV ad is actually what convinced them to buy.

You test for this by creating a holdout group from that 100k. Let's say 5k people. These are people that could have seen your ad, but we're intentionally not going to show it to them. We'll still use the conversion pixel's measurement functionality on them, and we see that 8% of those 5k people buy your product.

Now, we have a clearer picture - the Google ads drive 2% more conversions for your audience - or people on your mailing list who see an ad on Google are 25% more likely to convert than those who don't.

Nobody can predict the future, but it's a lot better to inform your predictions based on historic performance than on no data at all.

That's more or less accepted. Ads that appear in Google search results have some value, since they appear when someone is looking for something specific. That's measurable.

Ads that appear on irrelevant web pages have less value. That's well known. Apparently so little value that it's near zero for known brands, this article says. In the end, they're like useless banner ads. Mostly clicked on by bots.

Just because the ad placement is low quality (eg audience network) doesn’t mean they can’t produce a positive ROI. Keep in mind, Lower quality comes with a lower price, so it makes sense for some brands, and some products. The reason people dont get a positive return on low quality ad placement is that they often use the same ad, or adverse the same product as for the higher quality ad placement. These ads and product often needs to be tailored for that specific placement.

There’s a useful correlary to this for consumer tech.

While it is tempting to monetize with a publisher network, these networks don’t work well enough to justify their own spend for many advertisers. As a publisher you’ll likely be stuck in a race to the bottom until you have sufficient scale for direct ad deals (read as 10s of million MAU).

I’m not sure if kicking fraud out of these platforms would raise ROI, or reveal that the real price of banner ads and interstitials is 0.

i usually get ads for things that i just bought. That means they are very good at snooping, on the other hand if I just bought a TV set then that doesn't mean that i would need another one soon.

Funny that Goole/Facebook currently don't seem to be running ads for complements of products too often; Amazon is better at that (if you bought this book, then you might also want this one).

It seems like we've been talking about this so long that a complementary product feature would be standard everywhere even if it didn't work.

great summary

Source?

This all true. Source: My 11 years running ads on these platforms.

It is true. Partner sites make revenue for the partner through revshare and partners attempt to create fake clicks and even conversions to inflate their revenue. Cobra effect in play.

This risk is zero (except for things like ad neuseam) on first party / owned and operated placements like search/ig/fb.

As with anything you should verify your roi through third party measurement providers, just like you would do for others.

Disclaimer: current fb ads engineer, former google ads engineer.

Can you please elaborate? Your source is just an appeal to authority, but I would really appreciate more evidence to help explain your position.

By that logic any lottery winner could argue that lotteries are a great pension plan.

If they consistently win lotteries year after year with a good ROI, sure. Not sure how that comparison works.

Ever heard of survivor bias? Let me make an example: I choose 2048 random addresses. I choose I random company on the stock market. Half of the addresses I send a email stating the stock will rise in the next month, the other half the stock will fall. After a month I check the stock and disgard the addresses where my prediction was wrong. Than I repeat the previuos steps until only one address is left. Now ask him about my expertise on the stock market.

Really? Downvoted because I wanted to know the source for the proven ROI?

i agreed with u

Text-based search ads - are completely different from - network banners ads.

They are used for different reasons.

100% of ad buyers, marketing people know this, it's not an insight.

Nobody is 'accidentally spending money' on banner ads, when they thought they'd be spending money on Text ads.

Also - it's very straight forward to apply different measurements to FB ads in and out of network.