4 ms·
> So if you're a marketer with a budget, where do you allocate it? Put it on Google or Facebook, where there are tons and tons of users where you can target ver
by RyanZAG 11y ago
> So if you're a marketer with a budget, where do you allocate it? Put it on Google or Facebook, where there are tons and tons of users where you can target very well? Or on Pinterest, which is a much smaller audience, female, lower-income, where you can't target well? It's just not as efficient."
This part is really interesting considering how other tech companies put a huge amount of effort into acquiring that exact female crowd from their mostly male mid-to-upper crowd.
- raverbashing 11y ago"considering how other tech companies put a huge amount of effort into acquiring that exact female crowd" Exactly this. Pinterest caters to a niche. You can advertise to your target directly and probably spending less money Much better than FB or Google "targeting"
- TheLogothete 11y agoROAS numbers do not agree with you.
- raverbashing 11y agoDo you have a quote for that? (Also might be an issue of not tailoring campaigns to Pinterest) It seems to be getting behind Instagram, that's for sure http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-social-stratosphere-who-using-facebook-twitter-pinterest-tumblr-and-instagram-2015-and-beyond-1622 http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/new-social-s...
- TheLogothete 11y agoThe very same article we are commenting under, for one. And it's not an issue of not tailoring campagins. In fact, you are forced to make Pinterest-specific campaigns. It's an issue of inferior ad units, targeting and operations in comparison with FB and the same plus inferior monetization model in comparison with GOOG. I don't know why you linked to that adweek article. It's about demogprahics and usage, not adspend efficiency.
- raverbashing 11y agoYes, however I pointed the niche potential of Pinterest, which is there regardless of their inefficiency in leveraging that, which seems to be the point of the article