What I hoped would come through was something like:
ROI for that spend was XYZ. LTV for user acquisition was ABC compared to Adwords/FB/print etc...
Is 129 signups good compared to other efforts? Are inbound leads from podcasts more engaged or higher likelihood to pay than other channels?
I'm not sure what the value here is, other than saying something like "don't spend advertising money in an ad channel if you're unfamiliar with the details of the ad channel"
My main takeaway: it’s not always all about measurable ROI.If you look in the right places, you’re likely to see some other kind of magic at work.
Sounds like good advice if you want to waste ad money, even considering the "half of all advertising money is wasted..." koan. At the end of the day this "magic" has to turn into measurable ROI.
a) teaching people a solution to their problem exists (or even letting them know they have a problem)
b) raising brand awareness so when they do go to make a purchase they think of you first
Focusing too much on immediate ROI can miss the bigger picture. No one makes their SEO decisions based on a single FB ad impression. To think you can optimize for that is insanity.
Think about it; do you buy a car by clicking on a banner ad? Am I in the market for a new TV every week? Do people switch email systems every quarter? How likely are people to choose a brand or service they’ve never heard of when they do happen to be in the market?
also, thank you for saying "waste ad money" instead of "waste ad spend". (some people think it's a good idea to use "spend" as a noun. i wish i knew why. it sounds idiotic.)
imho, "compute" is ok if a true technical person or nerd says it because it makes them sound cooler. and they usually need as much coolness as possible.
but ad people use "spend" to make it sound like they have a specialized, impenetrably cool language, one which alienates and excludes the rest of us. but, the thing is, ad people are already cooler than the rest of us. that's how they got their job in the first place. also "spend" is a dumb choice for that because anyone can guess what it means.
that's my lame theory and i'm pretty sure no one else buys it.
ROI for that spend was XYZ. LTV for user acquisition was ABC compared to Adwords/FB/print etc...
Is 129 signups good compared to other efforts? Are inbound leads from podcasts more engaged or higher likelihood to pay than other channels?
I'm not sure what the value here is, other than saying something like "don't spend advertising money in an ad channel if you're unfamiliar with the details of the ad channel"
My main takeaway: it’s not always all about measurable ROI.If you look in the right places, you’re likely to see some other kind of magic at work.
Sounds like good advice if you want to waste ad money, even considering the "half of all advertising money is wasted..." koan. At the end of the day this "magic" has to turn into measurable ROI.