3 ms·
>Your Android point is rather different, given the wide disparity of Android devices. I disagree that it's different. Of course there are pockets of both valu
by downandout 10y ago
>Your Android point is rather different, given the wide disparity of Android devices.
I disagree that it's different. Of course there are pockets of both value and worthlessness everywhere, but overall the LTV of an Android user to developers and advertisers is a small fraction of that of an ioS user, and a Twitter user is worth (to advertisers) an even smaller fraction of the value of a Facebook user.
At scale, averages are what count.
>As you may have noticed, I'm not a fans of means in the advertising world.
I did notice that, and I cannot disagree with you there. But currently, for many advertisers, last-click based means is the most efficient available attribution model, even though I agree that it's far from perfect.
- disgruntledphd2 10y agoI don't think its efficient, just easy. It makes very little sense though. Do you attribute which beer you drink to the sign outside the bar? I think that its difficult to assess your premise under a last-click model, to be honest. When you look at the history of advertising, its very difficult to believe that a direct response (measurable by click) is actually the whole thing. I'm pretty sure I've never clicked on a Coca-Cola ad, but I have bought a lot of their product over the years. I mean, conditional on your experience with the value of Twitter users (for a particular set of clients/services) and a last-click model, I don't disagree with you, I just think that such a view of advertising leaves an awfully large amount of stuff out. Full disclosure: mobile attribution is hard, there is not standard or even dominant way of tracking views there (i believe) and so for some mobile-heavy/only advertisers better attribution methods are just a pipe dream at this point.