Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

stackfield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#71

Post by BinaryIdiot »

AlBentley wrote: post #21
dangrossman wrote: post #10

> Even these users churned after a short time. Why is that? We do not really know! You need to know this, and knowing it is as easy as asking. I e-mail every single person that cancels their subscription, and ask why they cancelled today and what we could have done to better serve them. I don't measure the response rate, but I write every mail personally and read every response, so I can tell you it's well over 50%.…

Our experience when trying this approach is 90% reply with 'lack of time' which is not the true reason but basically means the product didn't solve a major problem for them.

> which is not the true reason

Wait, how do you know this isn't true? Maybe your product had so much friction that they just didn't have the time to learn it, get on boarded, etc. Seems weird to dismiss approx 90% of feedback you're getting from users as being lies.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#72

Post by BinaryIdiot »

mikey_p wrote: post #68

I think one of the main things people forget in B2B stuff is that impulse purchases are less of a thing and people want to spend more time evaluating value/spending. This is why many a lot of B2B folks setup nurturing campaigns. This is where Facebook can really shine - what if instead of pushing a hard sell when someone is in the middle of reading their friends updates, you promote a white paper to folks that are al…

This! I forget the company name but one was on This Week in Start-ups a while back and they have a funnel where they use their data on you and, if they found you started looking at their products, their ads would change to something like "come on back" and if you started building a couch it would change again to "you can have that couch delivered in a week!" or something similar to that.

It's a little creepy mind you but I think the vast majority wouldn't notice that and it's a huge way of getting people back in.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#73

Post by BinaryIdiot »

gingerlime wrote: post #69

My biggest problem with FB advertising is that it is virtually a casino. We do everything right (I think). A/B test, segment, measure, measure, measure. But somehow it's never reproducible. A great organic post can flop completely when advertising to the very same target audience. We're B2C selling a targetted learning subscription to students in the medical field early in their learning path. We don't have fierce co…

Try Instagram and SnapChat. Facebook is still great but it's hugely saturated. Instagram and SnapChat seem to be where all the brands are heading now. Also Musical.ly but that's if your target demo is teenagers or younger.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#74

Post by blahi »

downandout wrote: post #26

There is an enormous difference between a user that is searching for keywords related to your product, and potential customers that probably aren't looking for your product that you have identified through Facebook targeting criteria. The Google user has a problem and is actively seeking a solution; the Facebook user fits what you believe is the demographic profile of someone that might be interested in your product.…

That's not the case at all. In fact, advertising on facebook (at scale) requires very complex measurement with statistical models.

People need to understand that marketing (in this case advertising) is hard. Just because you can code or do something else and you are a generally smart doesn't mean you can figure out how to buy advertising after 20 hours and reading some blog posts straight from google's search results.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#76

Post by blahi »

gingerlime wrote: post #69

My biggest problem with FB advertising is that it is virtually a casino. We do everything right (I think). A/B test, segment, measure, measure, measure. But somehow it's never reproducible. A great organic post can flop completely when advertising to the very same target audience. We're B2C selling a targetted learning subscription to students in the medical field early in their learning path. We don't have fierce co…

If you have the budget and persistence, you need need to be doing retargeting. Sponsored posts are... meh.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#77

Post by lopatin »

downandout wrote: post #26

There is an enormous difference between a user that is searching for keywords related to your product, and potential customers that probably aren't looking for your product that you have identified through Facebook targeting criteria. The Google user has a problem and is actively seeking a solution; the Facebook user fits what you believe is the demographic profile of someone that might be interested in your product.…

That's the essence of search vs. display advertising. You're right that the user's mindset is totally different when searching vs browsing but I think your conclusion about display ads not being worth it for direct online sales is wrong. People make money selling goods and services through FB ads. And many people are profitable with this (in the classical sense of "ROI"). Perhaps you're in a market where you found yourself bidding against people who don't measure direct monetary returns, and yes this is much more prevelant in display as opposed to search, but it's not that polarized in general. Your click through rate and conversion rate will be lower. Your cost-per-click will also be lower. Display works for direct advertising in many industries as long as you know how to target your market's interests.

Also fwiw I haven't seen the term "ROI" being used to describe non-monetary returns (clicks, likes, etc...), is that common now?

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#78

Post by gingerlime »

blahi wrote: post #76
gingerlime wrote: post #69

My biggest problem with FB advertising is that it is virtually a casino. We do everything right (I think). A/B test, segment, measure, measure, measure. But somehow it's never reproducible. A great organic post can flop completely when advertising to the very same target audience. We're B2C selling a targetted learning subscription to students in the medical field early in their learning path. We don't have fierce co…

If you have the budget and persistence, you need need to be doing retargeting. Sponsored posts are... meh.

We are doing retargeting as well. Not just sponsored posts.

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#79

Post by dmix »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #71
AlBentley wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our experience when trying this approach is 90% reply with 'lack of time' which is not the true reason but basically means the product didn't solve a major problem for them.

> which is not the true reason Wait, how do you know this isn't true? Maybe your product had so much friction that they just didn't have the time to learn it, get on boarded, etc. Seems weird to dismiss approx 90% of feedback you're getting from users as being lies.

It's not a lie, though.

It just means they saw some value in the product but didn't feel enough motivation to actually follow through and signup/use the product.

This is similar in many ways to someone answering "it's too expensive". The value prop is either not strong enough, not being marketed well enough, too complicated to start using... or the product is solving a pain point that people don't care enough about to build a business around it. Which is a serious question the OP needs to ask themselves. Unless their trafficconversion rate ratio is sufficient.

You can't expect customers to articulate that everytime (10-20% seems about right to me) because most people aren't actually thinking their actions through when visiting a landing page. Especially when it's via an ad... not something they searched out on Google or via referral.

Even if they did tell you they wouldn't necessarily know why... because you're assuming it was a rational thought process, or something they spent time thinking through, which is rarely the case. Books about how customers acting 'irrational' [1] are very useful at explaining this and are important to always be considering when doing marketing/UX design.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expand...

Re: How we unnecessarily burned 20k with Facebook Ads

#80

Post by downandout »

lopatin wrote: post #77
downandout wrote: post #26

There is an enormous difference between a user that is searching for keywords related to your product, and potential customers that probably aren't looking for your product that you have identified through Facebook targeting criteria. The Google user has a problem and is actively seeking a solution; the Facebook user fits what you believe is the demographic profile of someone that might be interested in your product.…

That's the essence of search vs. display advertising. You're right that the user's mindset is totally different when searching vs browsing but I think your conclusion about display ads not being worth it for direct online sales is wrong. People make money selling goods and services through FB ads. And many people are profitable with this (in the classical sense of "ROI"). Perhaps you're in a market where you found yo…

Re: ROI, I was just generally referring to the fact that many advertisers, large and small, deploy campaigns with the goal of gaining likes/shares etc. Brand advertisers count ROI this way, along with small businesses that have no other way to measure ROI other than with metrics such as likes, shares, and follows.

BTW, I am not the only person that feels this way about Facebook ads. I can't find the link atm but a study I read a year or so ago indicated that less than 6℅ of FB advertisers are showing a positive (cash) ROI.

Post reply on HN