Facebook Ads don't suck (opens in new tab)

I don't think it's about Facebook Ads sucking or not sucking. That's the narrative but the underlying issue is people feel that Facebook Ads are a rip off.

I wonder how much of Facebook's ad revenue (and Google's for that Matter) consists of less savvy marketing efforts that don't understand or even care about the metrics which matter. The long tail?

I don't believe the argument in favor of Facebook Ads can be that you need to understand marketing better or differently.

The majority, I presume, of people using these platforms have little to mediocre experience. The disappointment in Facebook Ads comes from this large group.

I've talked to plenty of people and no one has been happy with Facebook Ads. The details of why don't necessarily matter - they've taken their $ elsewhere. Winning them back will be tough.

This guy's company helps people tweak their facebook advertising is rallying to promote facebook ad effectivenes. Not exactly an impartial voice.

And yeah, why not hop on the thread and get some SEO links of your own.

This guy is no better than the people he is slandering.

Interesting post and you are spot on with this from a high-level.

For advanced digital marketers, the next step of course is looking beyond last click data. The attribution model you view your data through plays just as large a role in determining the success of it as many of the other factors that this article and others focus on.

Since you have conversion tracking setup for FB, FB conversions will obviously be higher than what GA shows in its standard reporting since FB's own conversion data is the equivalent of awarding 100% attribution to all assisted click conversions.

What would be more interesting is to see how this stacks up along with your other channels with various attribution models.

For those that are wondering if FB is working for you and looking at last click conversion metrics, you're doing it wrong. For a large % of scenarios, Facebook tends to play a much bigger role at the beginning of the conversion funnel, ie. the "Awareness" stage. This is also true of many forms of display advertising. To expect it to perform strongly on a last click model is unwise. First click models are likewise not great, but even that stark comparison will give you a sense of the contribution, and the GA multi-channel reports can show you that overlap.

I'm constantly blown away by how many amazing attribution tools Google gives away in the free version of GA and I'm always disappointed that none of the marketing articles that hit HN focus on that piece of the puzzle.

This is the original author, you only targeted Desktop, so your analysis does not refute my original point (that mobile clicks are accidental).

I did learn after I wrote my post how to target Desktop only and am running a follow up experiment, but if you're going to talk shit, at least do a valid comparison. Also I'm not sure what SEO you think I care about for my random Tumblr... (I specifically did not post it under my company blog)

Normally you would expect marketers to know that when you are dealing with a low amount of traffic (probably from a low spend), one or two errant clicks or a bot can totally throw off your numbers. This article does a great job of showing proving that you need larger datasets to get a better understanding of what's going on. It does a great job of showing the discrepancy in numbers from tracking platforms, but that's probably just because I'm sensitive to that right now, since I've been dealing with it myself fora while.

I think you make a good point about ignoring the visits because at the end of the day it all comes down to the effective CPA (cost per action) or conversion rate. Much of the misconception and disappointment in Facebook ads come from folks who don't have a nuanced view of the differences in marketing channel effectiveness. It doesn't really matter what you pay as long it works out to the same ROI - better channels can charge more per visit, worse channels charge less. The only downside to having lower quality channels is that they blend down your overall metrics so you have to segment your reporting appropriately.

In the last Facebook bashing post, the author compared the CPC on Facebook to the cost on AdWords which is a terrible comparison because the intent of a directed search on a search engine is so much more legitimate than just being somewhat interested in something on Facebook.

It is not that Facebook ads suck. They are fantastic for particular, specific business goals. Companies that have access to expensive and effective software outside of Facebook can make even better use of their platform in conjunction with others.

The problem has to do with the messaging to small business people by the big online advertising platforms. The messaging is that it is easy, fast, and has a small minimum spend. It's akin to the '90s era messaging around discount stock brokerages that encouraged average bums to become day traders. While yes, the average bum can day trade, it is not a good idea for the average bum to day trade. It is the same for online ads for people unwilling to spend the time/effort to study, filter out the junk information, and practice.

Ads may be not suck, but fake clicks and overcharging for them seems like a common theme lately.

If you are advertising FB ad services, your conversion would obviously be higher in FB. The fact that it is only 63% better that Google Ads seems poor.

My experience with FB is that the conversion rate is essentially zero and limited by your ability to donate to FB.

Kind of reminds me of:

Customer: "But using it, I'm loosing money on every purchase." Vendor: "Don't worry, buy more, you'll make it up on volume."

I'd love to hear what the HN crowd think about my comments on FB Ads after so many stories trending bashing Fb Ads :)