4 ms·

If you mean new sales, then that's interesting, and you should say that. Anyone who can get 200 new users out of every 1000 ads can certainly do something I can

by geocar 11y ago

If you mean new sales, then that's interesting, and you should say that. Anyone who can get 200 new users out of every 1000 ads can certainly do something I can't do, and I'd like to hear about how. Most people use the term "conversion" to mean matching some cookies together.

qaq 11y ago
It's way less drastic in the context of ad network it means a % of users that reached the landing page and then completed signup deposited no less ten X money played Y rounds in the next 30 or whatever days. Still even 5% given the industry was considered decent so >20% is very good.
- geocar 11y ago
  I don't know if you're trying to be confusing, but you're being confusing. You might try using plain language like, "For every dollar of advertising I spend, I generate two dollars of sales per year." Or adjust as needed. If you meant 200 sales out of 1000 ads, then that's very impressive, and as I said: I'd like to know more. However: If you meant 20 sales out of 100 visitors, then I'm not impressed. That means there were 80 people out of 100 people clicking on a button that says "spend X dollars", who didn't mean to spend X dollars, and you're just excited because it was less than 95 people. Moreover, it doesn't tell us anything about what your cost is to acquire those users is, or even if the sum of the spend was less than the sales generated from those users. I again, become worried you're either incompetent or trying to intentionally mislead me.
  - qaq 11y ago
    I have no intention of confusing you. I mean 20 "sales" out of 100 visitors. I was a tech lead for the partner network so have no skin in trying to impress anyone by results of external partners. To me a 20 year old dude making 50-60K per week is pretty impressive, I can't speak globally of what was the cost of traffic acquisition for all of them but for the guys I knew that was their net profit on +- 100K payouts.
    - geocar 11y ago
      Right, so as far as the advertiser is concern, this is still in the "may or may not be working" space. The fact that a company working in digital advertising can get hundreds of thousands of dollars in "payout" without having to actually justify their value to the brand's bottom line, alludes to exactly what this article is about: Google is offering a diminishing opportunity for brand exposure, and as those "payouts" get bigger, legitimate publishers are receiving less for their content (because they're competing with scammers), and advertisers are getting less sales (because they're buying more from scammers). The article then predicts that those payouts you're enjoying are about to go away because Advertisers are soon going to realise it's all crap. Of course, people have been predicting this for a long time...
      - qaq 11y ago
        They are not working for a company they are working for themselves, they place ads that drive traffic to gaming properties and receive a share of profits. They put their own money at risk for traffic acquisition, if they are wrong they will loose money. So basically they generated enough sales to receive a 100K profit share payment from partner network to them for a given week and spent 40K on ad inventory netting 60K profit.
        geocar 11y ago
        Okay, if that's true, that's very impressive: You're saying that these guys invest 2 million each and bring home 3.1 million each? I'd absolutely want to hear about this.
        qaq 11y ago
        I know that the pay side is true because that's what I saw on our end, the cost side is based on what a partners claimed was true I have no hard data on it, except given age and lifestyle it looked believable. It's not like they would share their strategies. The whole point I was trying to make is that from this anecdotal experience I personally came to the conclusion that best people in this field are probably working for themselves and focus on some lucrative niches.

by geocar 11y ago

qaq 11y ago

It's way less drastic in the context of ad network it means a % of users that reached the landing page and then completed signup deposited no less ten X money played Y rounds in the next 30 or whatever days. Still even 5% given the industry was considered decent so >20% is very good.

geocar 11y ago
I don't know if you're trying to be confusing, but you're being confusing. You might try using plain language like, "For every dollar of advertising I spend, I generate two dollars of sales per year." Or adjust as needed. If you meant 200 sales out of 1000 ads, then that's very impressive, and as I said: I'd like to know more. However: If you meant 20 sales out of 100 visitors, then I'm not impressed. That means there were 80 people out of 100 people clicking on a button that says "spend X dollars", who didn't mean to spend X dollars, and you're just excited because it was less than 95 people. Moreover, it doesn't tell us anything about what your cost is to acquire those users is, or even if the sum of the spend was less than the sales generated from those users. I again, become worried you're either incompetent or trying to intentionally mislead me.
- qaq 11y ago
  I have no intention of confusing you. I mean 20 "sales" out of 100 visitors. I was a tech lead for the partner network so have no skin in trying to impress anyone by results of external partners. To me a 20 year old dude making 50-60K per week is pretty impressive, I can't speak globally of what was the cost of traffic acquisition for all of them but for the guys I knew that was their net profit on +- 100K payouts.
  - geocar 11y ago
    Right, so as far as the advertiser is concern, this is still in the "may or may not be working" space. The fact that a company working in digital advertising can get hundreds of thousands of dollars in "payout" without having to actually justify their value to the brand's bottom line, alludes to exactly what this article is about: Google is offering a diminishing opportunity for brand exposure, and as those "payouts" get bigger, legitimate publishers are receiving less for their content (because they're competing with scammers), and advertisers are getting less sales (because they're buying more from scammers). The article then predicts that those payouts you're enjoying are about to go away because Advertisers are soon going to realise it's all crap. Of course, people have been predicting this for a long time...
    - qaq 11y ago
      They are not working for a company they are working for themselves, they place ads that drive traffic to gaming properties and receive a share of profits. They put their own money at risk for traffic acquisition, if they are wrong they will loose money. So basically they generated enough sales to receive a 100K profit share payment from partner network to them for a given week and spent 40K on ad inventory netting 60K profit.
      - geocar 11y ago
        Okay, if that's true, that's very impressive: You're saying that these guys invest 2 million each and bring home 3.1 million each? I'd absolutely want to hear about this.
        qaq 11y ago
        I know that the pay side is true because that's what I saw on our end, the cost side is based on what a partners claimed was true I have no hard data on it, except given age and lifestyle it looked believable. It's not like they would share their strategies. The whole point I was trying to make is that from this anecdotal experience I personally came to the conclusion that best people in this field are probably working for themselves and focus on some lucrative niches.