4 ms·
Edited for elaboration: The article doesn't mention the precise methodology for reaching the 5000 sites number, other than some human filtering being involved.
by mjevans 10y ago
Edited for elaboration:
The article doesn't mention the precise methodology for reaching the 5000 sites number, other than some human filtering being involved.
The precise wording of another section is also vague, the 'cost of an impressions' could mean either their total Internet marketing expenditure is the same (thus 395000 sites were largely ineffective and merely exposed them to risk and complexity) OR that they've reduced their spending by around 98+% with no appreciable change in effectiveness.
- dboreham 10y agoIf the result would have been the same with zero sites, the 5000 can be selected randomly.
- soared 10y agoThey also didn't really mention if this is 100% of their rtb or just some. I'd be really surprised is they limited their retargeting and native to 5000 sites.
- sumoboy 10y agoThe real question is how long has this been going on? I've seen these campaigns go on for years with worldwide clicks completely unchecked wasting a ton of $$. You can't trust automatic site placement but if you do, analytics will identify it quickly to exclude the loser sites. This is just complete mis-management of paid media. Fire the agency or internal people for stupidity..
- bluGill 10y agoclick is not a good measure of advertising value though. Clicks doesn't measure how many people see your ad and come back a couple months latter to buy.