5 ms·

I own an advertising agency. I've tracked ios impressions % over time on all of our remarketing campaigns (as a proxy), its down about 30% from peak and stabili

by cm2012 5y ago

I own an advertising agency. I've tracked ios impressions % over time on all of our remarketing campaigns (as a proxy), its down about 30% from peak and stabilized. Not a huge deal. LOL at this below: "Seufert estimated that in the first full quarter users see the prompt, the iOS changes could cut Facebook’s revenue by 7% if roughly 20% of users agree to be tracked. If just 10% of users grant Facebook tracking permission, revenue could be down as much as 13.6%, according to his models. The first full quarter with the prompt is the third quarter. Facebook reports second quarter earnings at the end of July." FB revenue is going to be up in Q3, not down, would bet $10k on that.

fouric 5y ago
iOS impressions down 30% from peak is "not a huge deal"? This is very counterintuitive to me, as iOS both holds the majority share of the US market, and 30% seems like a very high number. Can you explain?
- mertd 5y ago
  Maybe peak is Christmas?
- munchbunny 5y ago
  This is key: "on all of our remarketing campaigns" The discrepancy is that a 75% reduction in users opting into Facebook tracking is leading to only a 30% reduction in iOS share on the highest ROI ad campaigns. 30% is big but not 75% big. Another possible explanation is that opting out of tracking in iOS doesn't make you invisible. It just makes it hard for Facebook to correlate your off-app/non-Facebook.com web activity, but there are ways around that. So what 30% means hinges a lot on how the 1st touch -> 2nd touch leap is done, and the data for that leap doesn't always come from Facebook.
alliao 5y ago
I think so too. Previously we have a naive model of how facebook does tracking. now that apple closed this pathway, it's pressuring Facebook to reveal how they REALLY track or hide the fact they able to do so at some financial cost.
csilverman 5y ago
I think it's a bit early to be claiming that iOS impression loss has "stabilized". I'm the first one most of my friends come to for tech questions, and I make a point of explaining privacy issues to them and helping them counter creepy behavior in apps/websites. When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them. By myself, I'm an irrelevantly small data point, but it's not just me—most of my "tech support" friends are privacy-aware and evangelize it. I suspect iOS losses have only just begun, and will continue.
- handrous 5y ago
  > When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them. There's a "always, silently, deny" option in settings for this. It's labeled something like "allow apps to request tracking" and if you turn it off, they can't and just get a "no". No more asking per app, which is fine because it's not like anyone would ever want to allow it. It's not as if it's the kind of prompt where someone might actually want to say yes, sometimes. The screen is easy to find by searching "track" in iOS settings. I know because this headline prompted me to double check that I had it set correctly.
lwb 5y ago
> FB revenue is going to be up in Q3, not down, would bet $10k on that. Why?
- bquest2 5y ago
  Because they are still serving an ad in that spot, just one that costs the advertiser more as the now have to bid in a larger pool. FB actually ends up profiting pretty well from this change (at the cost of losing some of the small business advertising that was priced out)
  - smachiz 5y ago
    No, this isn't right - because FB can no longer tell you as much information about the ad they're about to display, they're going to collect less money for it. They can't correlate that ad to an action, which means they can't make you a happy chart that says the ROI is there. So you're going to pay less for it. This isn't going to harm small businesses no matter what FB says.
    - probably_wrong 5y ago
      That's one possibility. I'd like to offer a second one: that Facebook will charge the same amount and we are going to pay it. It's not like there are that many successful Facebook clones around.
      - smachiz 5y ago
        Except that's not how the ads work. They're all being bid in real time, by both people using FB tools (small biz) and 3rd parties. Whoever submits the highest bid wins that ad impression. Less information will mean people bid less, and the targeted ad prices will revert to their less targeted peers from a price perspective.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    Targeting larger pools should reduce per impression costs, because FB has more options for where and when to place your ad. Smaller groups have fewer opportunities, so if you want to show your ad to them specifically, you have to pay more.
jensensbutton 5y ago
Lot of people who were hoping for Facebook's demise are going to be sorely disappointed this year.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  They aren't going anywhere. They are, along with Google, scared of the current head of the FTC. They claim she is biased. "scared" is the wrong word for these powerful companies. She is probally the last thing Mark is worried about. Does he even have worries at this point?
  - bronzeage 5y ago
    If you expect any kind of pressure from Biden administration against the companies which nearly bought his presidency, you're naive. Facebook literally bought the Wisconsin elections, including the whole infrastructure. You think Biden do anything at all against Facebook when he owes his power to them more than the people?

by cm2012 5y ago

fouric 5y ago

iOS impressions down 30% from peak is "not a huge deal"? This is very counterintuitive to me, as iOS both holds the majority share of the US market, and 30% seems like a very high number. Can you explain?

mertd 5y ago
Maybe peak is Christmas?
munchbunny 5y ago
This is key: "on all of our remarketing campaigns" The discrepancy is that a 75% reduction in users opting into Facebook tracking is leading to only a 30% reduction in iOS share on the highest ROI ad campaigns. 30% is big but not 75% big. Another possible explanation is that opting out of tracking in iOS doesn't make you invisible. It just makes it hard for Facebook to correlate your off-app/non-Facebook.com web activity, but there are ways around that. So what 30% means hinges a lot on how the 1st touch -> 2nd touch leap is done, and the data for that leap doesn't always come from Facebook.

alliao 5y ago

I think so too. Previously we have a naive model of how facebook does tracking. now that apple closed this pathway, it's pressuring Facebook to reveal how they REALLY track or hide the fact they able to do so at some financial cost.

csilverman 5y ago

I think it's a bit early to be claiming that iOS impression loss has "stabilized". I'm the first one most of my friends come to for tech questions, and I make a point of explaining privacy issues to them and helping them counter creepy behavior in apps/websites. When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them. By myself, I'm an irrelevantly small data point, but it's not just me—most of my "tech support" friends are privacy-aware and evangelize it. I suspect iOS losses have only just begun, and will continue.

handrous 5y ago
> When my parents buy iPhones, the first thing I'll be telling them is which button to push when apps want to stalk them. There's a "always, silently, deny" option in settings for this. It's labeled something like "allow apps to request tracking" and if you turn it off, they can't and just get a "no". No more asking per app, which is fine because it's not like anyone would ever want to allow it. It's not as if it's the kind of prompt where someone might actually want to say yes, sometimes. The screen is easy to find by searching "track" in iOS settings. I know because this headline prompted me to double check that I had it set correctly.

lwb 5y ago

> FB revenue is going to be up in Q3, not down, would bet $10k on that. Why?

bquest2 5y ago
Because they are still serving an ad in that spot, just one that costs the advertiser more as the now have to bid in a larger pool. FB actually ends up profiting pretty well from this change (at the cost of losing some of the small business advertising that was priced out)
- smachiz 5y ago
  No, this isn't right - because FB can no longer tell you as much information about the ad they're about to display, they're going to collect less money for it. They can't correlate that ad to an action, which means they can't make you a happy chart that says the ROI is there. So you're going to pay less for it. This isn't going to harm small businesses no matter what FB says.
  - probably_wrong 5y ago
    That's one possibility. I'd like to offer a second one: that Facebook will charge the same amount and we are going to pay it. It's not like there are that many successful Facebook clones around.
    - smachiz 5y ago
      Except that's not how the ads work. They're all being bid in real time, by both people using FB tools (small biz) and 3rd parties. Whoever submits the highest bid wins that ad impression. Less information will mean people bid less, and the targeted ad prices will revert to their less targeted peers from a price perspective.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  Targeting larger pools should reduce per impression costs, because FB has more options for where and when to place your ad. Smaller groups have fewer opportunities, so if you want to show your ad to them specifically, you have to pay more.

jensensbutton 5y ago

Lot of people who were hoping for Facebook's demise are going to be sorely disappointed this year.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
They aren't going anywhere. They are, along with Google, scared of the current head of the FTC. They claim she is biased. "scared" is the wrong word for these powerful companies. She is probally the last thing Mark is worried about. Does he even have worries at this point?
- bronzeage 5y ago
  If you expect any kind of pressure from Biden administration against the companies which nearly bought his presidency, you're naive. Facebook literally bought the Wisconsin elections, including the whole infrastructure. You think Biden do anything at all against Facebook when he owes his power to them more than the people?