3 ms·
It sounds like the ads were directed at Facebook pages. Then the 150k was the number who clicked then ad, then clicked through to his actual website(s). In wh
by tempestn 13y ago
It sounds like the ads were directed at Facebook pages. Then the 150k was the number who clicked then ad, then clicked through to his actual website(s). In which case, that's actually a pretty fantastic clickthrough rate. At least, that's the understanding I got from this paragraph:
At one point, data from Facebook indicated his ads had delivered 606,000 clicks, but the site itself registered only 160,000 incoming clicks from Facebook, according to data supplied by Brar. (160,000 clicks is a not insignificant return. After all, these are not clicks on a mere Facebook page, these are users who clicked through to an off-Facebook site.)
Otherwise I'm not sure what they'd mean by "160,000 clicks is not an insignificant return." Maybe I'm reading too much into it though.
- mehwoot 13y agoIt sounds like the ads were directed at Facebook pages. I don't think so, the article says After all, these are not clicks on a mere Facebook page, these are users who clicked through to an off-Facebook site. I.e. the link that the user would go to after clicking the ad would be an off-facebook site, not a facebook page.
- tempestn 13y agoRight. The 160k clicks are not clicks on a mere Facebook page. Perhaps the original 606k that Facebook is talking about are though. And the 160k are the number of those that click through to the off-site page. Anyway, probably not. Was just a theory. The article could be clearer.