Live data from Hacker News

We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

indiehackers.com

41–50 of 211 posts

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#41

This is such impressive blather that I’m now convinced I know nothing at all about modern sales and marketing. It may as well have been written by an ancient alien civilization for all I understood. Probably we’ll hear something very like this when SETI receives a signal from another star system.

>>> Thanks to developers’ trust in our core infrastructure and their recommendations, we’re fortunate to have a constant and growing inbound flow of leads and net negative churn, meaning the value of usage-driven upgrades outweighs the loss in revenue from subscription cancellations. I’m glad they clarified what “net negative churn” means, that really cleared things up.

Inbound -> people coming to the site (instead of salespeople calling them up)

Churn -> people canceling their subscriptions.

Churn Rate -> rate at which they're canceling (ex: 5% a month)

Net Negative Churn Rate -> if the overall dollar amount of people moving from $50/mo plans to $100/mo plans is higher than the dollar amount of people canceling subscriptions.

So while the Churn Rate doesn't change (still 5% a month) the overall monthly revenue is still increasing. This is really hard to do and it's a good indicator that they're making something that people really want and are willing to pay to use.

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this a really uncharitable reading of the article. This is a real business that has built itself up from nothing to $100,000 per month in revenue (which is important as it means they aren't just burning VC cash in random acts of marketing) and they're speaking in precise terms about specific actions they've taken and the results they've gotten. I've no doubt that if you're unfamiliar with marketing that t…

Michael .... it’s really bad writing. You can’t say “hey ordinary person I’ll save you wasting $50k on AdWords” then instantly drop straight deep into the most arcane of mumbled, cryptic, faded rune digital marketing magic speak. Refer to the comment below from HN user 83457 who explains same but in English.

This article is shop talk for digital marketing and I see nothing particularly wrong with it. It’s actually a pretty interesting write up from a nuts and bolts perspective.

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#43
Left a comment on the IndieHackers page. Keeping a copy here for those who aren't reading the comments section. I have noticed this a lot in various websites I have helped in ad campaigns. Their biggest problem is their landing page. Just like this article uses lots of jargons to explain simple concepts, their landing page reflects the same. For those of you wanting to know more about landing page optimization just watch Isaac Rudansky's excellent videos on Udemy. One of the most important rules is the 5 second test. Show your landing page to your colleagues/friends/family depending on your target audience. If they can't understand what your business proposition is in 5 seconds you have failed landing page optimization. As simple as that.

The comment I posted on the IndieHackers page:

------------------

The landing page is too complex. Like what does "Full stack adaptive delivery" even mean? I am sure 90% of your paid visitors are just bouncing because that landing page tagline is alien to them. Dumb it down. Make it simple.

Surprisingly, the description in the Indiehackers page makes so much more sense than the one you put up: "File-system-as-a-service that does uploads, storage, and media processing for Web and mobile apps, so you can ship products faster and scale them painlessly"

If you told me that the first time I would have understood your value proposition. Don't get too fancy with your taglines. People don't have time to understand what you are saying. People don't like fancy terminologies except for what is popular. There are too many jargons already. Don't complicate it further.

Instead of "Full stack adaptive delivery" just try: "File-system-as-service". Instead of "Serve ultimate UX with better images on any website. One script to rule them all." just have: "Ship products faster with better images on any website". That's it. You will get 50+% higher conversion rates with just this one change.

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#45
> CTR is the most important component of Quality Score

this is because that's how google gets paid.

you can create a great ad that's not terribly relevant to a specific audience, get good ctr but poor conversion.

some tips:

make sure to watch your search query reports and continuously refine your [hopefully shared] carefully-applied negative keywords lists.

avoid broad match like the plague. we use mostly phrase and modified broad with good negative phrase lists that have been continously honed over many months.

don't hyper-segment keyword or ad variations, it'll become a nightmare to manage with little-to-no benefit.

also, whether paid ads are worth it is highly dependent on your market, competitors, and your typical conversion value.

because our typical orders exceed $500, we see double-digit factor returns on ad spend even though we're an established, well-known mfg name in our market.

and yes, be ready to waste some money when dialing things in - $50k in a month of pure waste is quite a lot but that same amount "wasted" on tweaking over the course of 6mo-1yr is not out of the ballpark, assuming it yields progressively increasing ROI.

YMMV

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this a really uncharitable reading of the article. This is a real business that has built itself up from nothing to $100,000 per month in revenue (which is important as it means they aren't just burning VC cash in random acts of marketing) and they're speaking in precise terms about specific actions they've taken and the results they've gotten. I've no doubt that if you're unfamiliar with marketing that t…

Michael .... it’s really bad writing. You can’t say “hey ordinary person I’ll save you wasting $50k on AdWords” then instantly drop straight deep into the most arcane of mumbled, cryptic, faded rune digital marketing magic speak. Refer to the comment below from HN user 83457 who explains same but in English.

The structure of the article is weird yes but the sections are entirely relevant to marketing analytics.

The writer establishes they have some baseline analytics and understanding of demand generation prior to embarking on paid.

Then they embark on paid.

Then they tell you what they learned.

FWIW for any organization new to paid, this article will probably save you some 10s of thousands in spend if you internalize it properly.

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#47

Left a comment on the IndieHackers page. Keeping a copy here for those who aren't reading the comments section. I have noticed this a lot in various websites I have helped in ad campaigns. Their biggest problem is their landing page. Just like this article uses lots of jargons to explain simple concepts, their landing page reflects the same. For those of you wanting to know more about landing page optimization just w…

As someone who is trying to learn and some day launch something like this, thank you so much for this advice!

I've been known to complicate descriptions on my OSS packages but still achieved moderate success, so I'm thinking on how to convert this knowledge into revenue and these comments are super helpful.

Question: how do you manage to both keep it simple but relevant for SEO? Isn't SEO a lot about keyword stuffing?

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like this a really uncharitable reading of the article. This is a real business that has built itself up from nothing to $100,000 per month in revenue (which is important as it means they aren't just burning VC cash in random acts of marketing) and they're speaking in precise terms about specific actions they've taken and the results they've gotten. I've no doubt that if you're unfamiliar with marketing that t…

The fact that they admit to targeting keywords that have no relevance to their product is just... I dunno.

Slight clarification: they targeted keywords that they didn't have a specific landing page for, this might be like sending people to a landing page that generically talks about "file uploads" instead of a landing page that hyper-specifically talks about "file uploads for laravel".

They were saying they should have held off on targeting those more specific terms until they had those matching and more specific landing pages in place.

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#49

Left a comment on the IndieHackers page. Keeping a copy here for those who aren't reading the comments section. I have noticed this a lot in various websites I have helped in ad campaigns. Their biggest problem is their landing page. Just like this article uses lots of jargons to explain simple concepts, their landing page reflects the same. For those of you wanting to know more about landing page optimization just w…

I was wondering if perhaps they could make it easy for me to handle responsive images & formats.

"Easily implement our Bi-Directional CDN© to personalize on-demand adaptive delivery of UX-relevant content. Engage your target audiences"

Slowly backs away

Re: We Wasted $50K on Google Ads So You Don't Have To (2019)

#50

Left a comment on the IndieHackers page. Keeping a copy here for those who aren't reading the comments section. I have noticed this a lot in various websites I have helped in ad campaigns. Their biggest problem is their landing page. Just like this article uses lots of jargons to explain simple concepts, their landing page reflects the same. For those of you wanting to know more about landing page optimization just w…

Great advise, but it reads as What, How and then Why.

I think flipping it around would be even more impactful. Start with Why ;)

Post reply on HN