Marketers have a Faustian pact with cookies. Every marketer knows deep down that a cookie is a blunt instrument and its limitations are woefully apparent when dealing with cross-channel campaigns. Unfortunately, cookies are the best and arguably the only way to track the effectiveness of wide-reaching online campaigns. That is, until this year. The relaunch of Facebook’s Atlas and Twitter Fabric have arguably heralded a brave new world in online marketing.
Focusing on Facebook’s Atlas, it is a major move by Facebook to take on Google on its home turf — display advertising. Aside from dispensing with cookies, Atlas purports to bridge the gap between the offline and online advertising worlds by linking the interactions of customers in the real world to their Facebook profile.
There are times when Facebook advertisers lose customers and can’t spend their daily budgets because their own campaigns compete against each other, even before reaching the online auction. The reason is due to duplicate targeting. You can prevent the problem by designing your campaigns carefully with the instructions in this article.
Here’s an example: We are running two Facebook campaigns for our web store called “Kalle’s Comfort Shoes” (name changed). The first campaign, called “WCA, main page visitors,” is targeted at web store visitors in Germany and has a daily budget of 1200 euros. The second one, called “Lookalike, seed audience: checkout page WCA,” is targeted at a lookalike audience in Germany and has a 1000 euro daily budget. Because both campaigns are targeting people in Germany, there is a possibility of overlapping audiences. Thus, you can end up competing against yourself!
Facebook attracts more than a billion mobile users each month and 66 percent of its revenues come from this channel. In fact, mobile users spend 20 percent of their mobile time on Facebook!
Facebook’s success on mobile, whether from the point of view of the audience size or monetization, is unparalleled.
Instagram and WhatsApp (acquired respectively in April 2012 and February 2014) are two other social apps also with phenomenal audience success, although several notches below. They’re not profit centers yet and will not be discussed here.
What about the blue giant’s mobile diversification strategy beyond the main app and purchased successes?
When your best friend comes to town and you dress up as a squid and an octopus for Halloween, you know that’s going to be special. And when you and your saltwater buddy have their tentacles held by Dan, who you met that night, and you improvise a friendship rap together, you know lifelong bonds have been formed.
This is the situation my best friend and I found ourselves in while attending Howl 2014, an annual Halloween rave at Branx/Rotture in Portland, Oregon.
Here’s how I found Dan with less than $3 in Facebook ads.
As search and marketing evolve, new advances – particularly Facebook’s recent re-launch of its Atlas ad platform, which measures ad campaigns across screens and allows brands to target real people across mobile and the web – pose questions like how much is too much tracking, and how will consumers react to brands becoming more targeted in their marketing efforts? With careful targeting, tracking, and second screen integration, brands can easily nurture their relationships with customers.
However, at some point, will consumers equate marketing to stalking?
Advertising is often the first point of contact between brands and customers, and advertisers need to be careful about targeting too narrowly. The temptation is certainly ripe. Unlike TV and print marketing, where broad brand messages are ideal, appropriately targeting all possible demographics in one fell swoop is entirely possible online. With search, brands can target a specific set of customers on Google, a different set on Facebook, and even another set on their mobile platform. With the availability of all these different platforms, brands can easily fall victim to overly diversifying platform experiences.
By now, you’ve surely heard about Facebook’s like gate ban that will go into effect on Nov. 5.
If you somehow missed it, here’s a quick rundown.
In August, Facebook announced that they would no longer allow businesses pages to like-gate or fan-gate their content. In essence this means businesses can longer withhold information or materials from their fans in exchange for “liking” their page. This announcement affected custom Facebook page apps, which are also known as tabs, or as we like to call them, campaigns.
Well, the November 5 deadline is quickly approaching so now’s the time to make sure your Facebook efforts won’t be negatively affected by this change.
Imagine the direct impact on supporter relations if the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge had included a way to capture email. What an amazing moment for the ALS to identify those supporters willing to further share their support, learn more or even get more deeply involved. With hundreds of thousands of people suddenly exposed to their cause, and motivated to engage with the mission, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge exemplified the power of social marketing and illustrates its potential in providing untapped opportunities to reach, capture and cultivate meaningful relationships with supporters.
For years, organizations have treated Facebook and email as entirely different channels to reach and engage supporters. But increasingly, organizations that successfully merge their email and Facebook efforts find themselves with far more benefits.
(This is an excerpt from Todd Denis’ detailed post about Facebook fan value on Augmo.)
What should you pay for a Facebook fan heading into 2015? Common sense and the average marketing budget says it’s about $1 per fan – but the potential value of that fan to your brand is likely much higher.
This in-depth article addresses the pros and the cons of widely known Fan Acquisition Costs (FAC), focused heavily around Facebook. It also provides three models for calculating your brand fans’ potential value (aside from costs): Halo Value, Leads Value and Revenue Value. Under these three models, I’ve calculated some unscientific but (hopefully) entertaining Facebook brand fan value examples:
- Oreo’s Facebook fan = $5.90
- Hubspot’s Facebook fan = $3.71
- Audible’s Facebook fan = $10.04
In May, Facebook rolled out an update on releasing video metrics, wherein users will get information on total video views, unique video views, the average duration of the video view and audience retention. This indeed was a great update for marketers! Some brands still love listening to the term GRPs and it seems like Facebook is bridging the gap between TV and online video by introducing this measuring unit. But that’s not it.
Lately, I started noticing the number of views on some videos and it looks like the Facebook video view update is out!
Facebook’s recent re-launch of Atlas unearths an intriguing privacy concern. Should consumer data collected under the premise of social networking be shared with third party publishers, potentially exposing it to any advertiser?
Facebook consumes only 18 percent of its users in app time; 40 percent is of users’ time is spent on games and entertainment apps, which own a fraction of the user data that Facebook does. This wealth of data that Facebook owns harbors a huge blue ocean of opportunity for app developers and advertisers alike – making the employment of Atlas an ROI gold mine.