How is there proof of a sale due to an ad on a platform if the customer never interacted with the ad?
I can guarantee you that no one is going to sign an advertisement contract if they have to pay more solely because the company sold something within that timeframe.
The platform they advertise on is the one tracking the customer through the purchase, but that can’t happen if the customer buys a product before they’re shown an ad.
I think you overestimate how much time the companies buying ads spend on analyzing the data, or if they even get that data.
The company selling the ad also doesn’t have much interest in transparent reporting.
The end result is that neither the company selling the ads or the company buying the ads have any interest in the ads.
They both only care about their own sales numbers. Fuck the consumers, fuck the product, fuck the ads. Only sales.
I can guarantee you that no one is going to sign an advertisement contract if they have to pay more solely because the company sold something within that timeframe.
I used to spend a million a year on TV ads without ever knowing if I got a sale from those ads.
If they sold a package “X ads for X dollars depending on proof of conversion.” it might have been something I signed up for. Realistically if they could have done it, they wouldn’t have offered any other option.
“Do you want to run ads? This is our package. You pay $X and if you get sales from those ads you pay $X + $Y because we proved the ads made you money. Take it or leave it. We own 85% of the ad market.”
You pay $X and if you get sales from those ads you pay $X + $Y because we proved the ads made you money.
That’s the problem. In your original scenario the advertising platform isn’t proving ads resulted in sales. They’re showing the ads after the sale occurs.
You said the company would be self-reporting their sales to the advertiser so that they’d have to pay the advertiser more money. But companies often run ad campaigns on multiple platforms and even multiple campaigns on one platform. They’re not going to pay extra multiple times to multiple companies because they made a single sale.
They’re not going to pay extra multiple times to multiple companies because they made a single sale.
The premise is that the package is ads that resulted in a conversion are paid higher. It’s not an individual ad that creates a conversion is singularly billed higher. It’s an ad package where a conversion happened, therefore a higher price for that entire package.
But you can’t know a conversion happened due to a specific ad package unless the customer interacts with an ad from that package.
And platforms can definitely give you detailed enough metrics to know how many conversions happened due to customers interacted with your ads. It’s part of what tracking cookies are for.
And platforms can definitely give you detailed enough metrics to know how many conversions happened due to customers interacted with your ads
Yes that you got a sale and they proved it is why you had to pay more. Every ad doesn’t cause a conversion. But the more ads show can cause more conversions.
How is there proof of a sale due to an ad on a platform if the customer never interacted with the ad?
I can guarantee you that no one is going to sign an advertisement contract if they have to pay more solely because the company sold something within that timeframe.
The platform they advertise on is the one tracking the customer through the purchase, but that can’t happen if the customer buys a product before they’re shown an ad.
You vastly overestimate the nuance in ad spend.
No I don’t. I’m saying that a company isn’t going to pay an advertising platform more money just because.
I think you overestimate how much time the companies buying ads spend on analyzing the data, or if they even get that data.
The company selling the ad also doesn’t have much interest in transparent reporting.
The end result is that neither the company selling the ads or the company buying the ads have any interest in the ads. They both only care about their own sales numbers. Fuck the consumers, fuck the product, fuck the ads. Only sales.
Right, but the company buying ad space isn’t going to pay extra because they sold a product during the time period the ad ran.
I used to spend a million a year on TV ads without ever knowing if I got a sale from those ads.
And did you have to pay extra just because you made a sale in the time span the ad was running?
If they sold a package “X ads for X dollars depending on proof of conversion.” it might have been something I signed up for. Realistically if they could have done it, they wouldn’t have offered any other option.
“Do you want to run ads? This is our package. You pay $X and if you get sales from those ads you pay $X + $Y because we proved the ads made you money. Take it or leave it. We own 85% of the ad market.”
That’s the problem. In your original scenario the advertising platform isn’t proving ads resulted in sales. They’re showing the ads after the sale occurs.
You said the company would be self-reporting their sales to the advertiser so that they’d have to pay the advertiser more money. But companies often run ad campaigns on multiple platforms and even multiple campaigns on one platform. They’re not going to pay extra multiple times to multiple companies because they made a single sale.
The premise is that the package is ads that resulted in a conversion are paid higher. It’s not an individual ad that creates a conversion is singularly billed higher. It’s an ad package where a conversion happened, therefore a higher price for that entire package.
But you can’t know a conversion happened due to a specific ad package unless the customer interacts with an ad from that package.
And platforms can definitely give you detailed enough metrics to know how many conversions happened due to customers interacted with your ads. It’s part of what tracking cookies are for.
Yes that you got a sale and they proved it is why you had to pay more. Every ad doesn’t cause a conversion. But the more ads show can cause more conversions.