Summary
Facebook click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% (Facebook CTRs)
Facebook effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 (Facebook eCPMs)
Facebook average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25 (Facebook CPCs)
Other social media benchmarks from my experiments (Adwords, StumbleUpon, PayPerPost / Izea) can be found here.
As a scientist, I like to run experiments. And I like to make stuff. So my team and I made a few Facebook apps that solved needs that we had (a few samples listed below) and shared them publicly on Facebook to see if they were also useful to other people too.
I beta tested some apps with a few friends by inviting them directly. Then to get it out to a larger number of people, we decided to try Facebook advertising, the much-hyped, holy grail of display advertising on one of the largest and most active social networks.
- visual discovery, share, and queue management interface for Netflix
- visual discovery and sampling interface for music (Amazon backend)
- create and send photo or video e-cards by drag and drop (Flickr and YouTube backend)
- visual display of your friends (closest ones have the most recent status updates)
- social commerce – I’ll buy what he bought; things I have, things I want
But what I found was eye-opening to say the least. Despite the potential of social ads where the social actions of your circle of friends could make the ads more targeted, none of the anticipated positive effects were observed. Despite the promise of mass reach, there was not the corresponding attention or clicks. And despite the use of demographics-based targeting, there was no statistically significant difference between different targets nor the control sample, running during the same time period.
What we saw were click-through rates of 0.01 – 0.05% — and the 0.01% often seemed like rounding because they did not report more than 2 decimal places. As a result of these click rates the effective CPMs turned out to be $0.01 – $0.19 and average CPCs ranged from $0.05 – $0.25. I’ve been running these Facebook ads for more than 12 months; and millions of impresisons later, there is no observable improvements to CTRs and thus CPMs and CPCs. But since I set up the campaigns to only pay when there is a click (CPC basis), I can let these run indefinitely because I am getting so few clicks, it’s not even making a dent on my credit card (which I use to pay for the ads).
Ideas for Facebook
In the spirit of openness, as an advertiser who wants to continue using Facebook advertising, perhaps there are a few things they can do to improve the effectiveness of Facebook display ads.
1. reduce the number of ads per page to 1 – displaying multiple ads artificially depresses click-through rates because users can only click on 1 thing at a time, even if they liked more than one of them. Displaying 3 on a page simply increases the denominator while the numerator does not increase — in the click-through rate equation: clicks / impressions.
2. make ads sharable – in the rare instance a user views an ad, it may or may not be relevant to her, but she may know that it is relevant and timely for a friend. By making ads sharable, she can click and send to a friend, who is very likely to find it useful and valuable, especially having been sent by a friend.
3. let users opt-in to ads in specific topic categories - when users are in the market for specific things, they are more likely to subscribe to pertinent news feeds, offers, etc. related to that topic or category. By giving users more power over what they want to see, it will also give advertisers more targeted and engaged prospects to target.
4. expand search-based advertising – when users search they are looking for something and are open to discovering something they didn’t know to ask for. So ads served up in response to a search is usually a lot more effective than ads served up simply when a page is loaded (display advertising). Facebook can serve display ads based on pertinent search queries.
Earth to Facebook… anyone listening?
By Dr. Augustine Fou. Dr. Fou is Group Chief Digital Officer at Healthcare Consultancy Group a group of agencies within the Omnicom family specializing in pharma and healthcare. He helps clients develop digital marketing programs or improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness existing campaigns via advanced analytics, social marketing, and digital strategy. You can read more of his writing on digital marketing on this blog and follow him on twitter @acfou.
Excerpt from TechCrunch: “Click fraud is serious business on the big search engine advertising networks because the bad guys can make serious money. Sign up for an Adsense account and put those ads on parked domain names or wherever. Then all you have to do is start clicking those ads like crazy, using bots or cheap labor.” On Facebook, “advertisers are clicking on competitor ads to drive up their costs and drive down their ROI.”
“So the bad guys just create thousands of fake Facebook accounts with a wide variety of demographic information. This sounds like a lot of work, but it’s highly automated. the going rate was just $10 per 100 accounts if you supply the unique email accounts. Once the accounts are created, they use software to fill out the varied demographic information, and that software also manages all these accounts. The fraudster then logs in to Facebook via these accounts and views the ads that are displayed. The right competitive ads come up and Bingo, the software then clicks them. Facebook rules allow an account to click any advertisement up to six times in a 24 hour period, and all those clicks are charged. All you need is a few accounts to view the ads and then click to the max.”
Despite click fraud, the click through rates are still incredibly low. So if you subtract all the click fraud, is ANY advertiser making ANY money from facebook advertising?
Others have found similarly dismal click through rates from Facebook advertising
Source: http://www.friendswithbenefitsbook.com/2008/04/07/facebook-ad-click-through-rates-are-really-pitiful/
Facebook Ad Click-Through Rates Are Really Pitiful
April 7, 2008 – 5:03 pm
Quite by coincidence, I’ve encountered a few statistics on Facebook’s advertising platform. I thought I’d post links to the results I’ve uncovered, in case anybody is wondering about average CTR rates for Facebook.
First up, Rod Boothby got a click-through rate of 0.01%:
This week, I ran $105 worth of Facebook Fliers. That bought me 52,500 impressions. It looks like the flier bought me about an extra 500 site visits. That’s about $0.21 per hit.
Michael Ferguson ran a bunch of Facebook ads for Kinzin:
Click-through rates are abysmal. I was running the identical ad in about 15 different regions (you need to run them as separate ads to get the stats broken out), getting just over 10M views. Our average clickthrough rate was 0.06% (that’s 1 in 1513, for those counting at home). The best we did anywhere was 0.14%.
He later reports that the conversion rate was “at a pretty reasonable clip” at about 5%. By ‘conversion’, I think he’s meaning people who actually signed up for Kinzin’s free service. All of this stuff is contextual, but if visitors had to lay down money, the conversion rate would be considerably lower.
The folks at Valleywag report similarly dismal numbers:
Media buyers — the agency people who book campaigns — report that the college social network is a truly terrible target. They’re mainly students, with low disposable income, of course; but, beyond that, the users appear to be too busy leaving messages for eachother to show much interest in advertising. Facebook’s members appear indifferent even to movie advertising aimed at their demographic. Clickthrough rates, the percentage of time users click on an ad, average 0.04% — just 400 clicks in every 1m views — according to one report seen by Valleywag.
From AllFacebook:
Fred Wilson has been updating the world about his venture in Facebook advertising over the past week. Today, Fred posted and updated screenshot of his ad campaign’s performance and it doesn’t appear to be too stellar. For one of his campaigns, out of 10,080 impressions there were only 8 clicks. The average cost-per-click for Fred was $0.08 and the average CPM was $0.06. This is a less than stellar performance. This is nothing new though.
And lastly, from a digital student marketing blog in the UK. This would seem like a natural fit for Facebook’s audience:
Our most recent campaign saw 1.4 million page impressions delivered at specific universities – and only a 0.04% clickthrough rate. Ouch.
Click-through rates seem to sit around 0.04%, which is profoundly lame if you ask me. I’m no online advertising expert–it’s not really our thing–but I’ve run a bunch of Google AdWords and other contextual advertising campaigns. We regularly get click-through rates of 3%, and I gather that’s nothing special.
Here’s my theory on Facebook: it’s a silo. People visit the Fun House of Facebook, and conceptually treat it slightly different than the rest of the web. They’re in Facebook, interacting with friends, playing games, sending messages and now chatting on IM. As such, they’re really unmotivated to leave. Who wants to leave the Fun House?
We’ve seen similar results across Facebook. It’s really difficult to drive visitors out of the app and to your own website.
Tags: a good click through rate, Abysmal Click-Through Rates, advertisement on facebook statistics, advertising, advertising click-through benchmarking, Adwords, Amazon, apps, attention, automated click fraud, average click through rate for facebook, average cost per click for facebook, average CPC for Facebook, average CPCs, average ctr "LinkedIn", average ctr facebook 2009, average CTR on facebook ad network, average facebook campaign costs, backend, benchmarking in social marketing, benchmarks, beta, Chief Digital, circle, click, click farm, click fraud, click through rates on facebook ads, commerce, control, CPCs, CPMs, crm on facebook, CTR - Clickthrough Rates on Facebook CPC Ads, CTRs, decimal places, difference, digital marketing, discovery, display, display advertising, Dr. Fou, drag, drag and drop, e cards, effective cost per thousand for facebook, effective CPMs, effectiveness of facebook ads, Facebook, facebook ad benchmarks, facebook ad click through rate, facebook ad cpc, facebook ad effectiveness, facebook ad metrics, facebook ad rates, facebook ad specs, facebook ads Actions Rate, facebook ads CTR, facebook ads effectiveness, facebook ads impressions, facebook ads impressions vs clicks, facebook ads metrics, facebook advertising, facebook advertising clicks, facebook advertising costs, facebook advertising effectiveness, facebook advertising impressions, facebook advertising kpi, Facebook advertising metrics, facebook advertising rates, facebook average CPCs, facebook benchmarks, Facebook Click Fraud, facebook click through rates, Facebook CPCs, facebook CTR, Facebook CTRs, facebook display advertising, Facebook eCPMs, facebook effective CPMs, facebook good click through rate, facebook kpi, facebook marketing, facebook metrics, facebook statistics, facebook stats, faecbook metrics, flickr, Fraud, friend, good click through rate for facebook, grail, Group, healthcare, holy grail, how effective are facebook ads, how effective facebook advertising, hyped, increase your clickthrough rate on facebook, interface, is advertising on facebook effective, izea, lot, management, management interface, marketing, mass, metrics for facebook ads, music, Netflix, none, number, page, PayPerPost, photo, potential, promise, queue, reach, ROI, same time period, sample, scientist, search, share, So Few Clicks, So Many Ads, social actions, social ads, social marketing benchmarks, social media benchmarks, social media kpi, social media response rate benchmark, social networks, something, status, status updates, stuff, StumbleUpon, summary, team, time, topic, use, video, visual discovery, what are click rates for facebook ads, what is a good click through rate for facebook ads?, what is a good CTR on facebook, what is a good facebook click through rate, what is a good facebook ctr, whats a good click rate for facebook ads, YouTube
My colleagues know I have argued against advertising’s ability to do “demand generation” — create need where there was none before. Instead I have always argued that advertising solves an awareness “missing link” for demand that was already there. In other words, a user has a need. Advertising puts a new product or a product that a particular user was simply not aware of before on his radar screen. And after further research, if the product fulfills that need he buys. Advertising rarely creates NEW demand. For example, we buy 4 quarts of milk per week because we have 2 kids. No amount of milk advertising will make us buy 5 quarts, because we simply don’t need it. Or, we’ve just bought a minivan. No amount of advertising, no matter how cool the family or the kids in the ad, will make us buy another mini van. If we just locked in health insurance this year, we are likely not to buy more or to switch, just because it is such a hassle. Make up more of your own examples.
But, I have to say, Carl Jr’s ad with Padma is really really making me want their bacon, barbecue sauce burger. Or is it just ANY bacon, barbecue sauce burger? Or wait, is there even a Carl Jr around here? hmm ….. I guess I’ll just look at the picture some more… 
Padma devours fast food, Lindsay Lohan goes retro for Fornarina and vampire ads raise the stakes
March 30, 2009
-By Tim Nudd
Carl’s Jr. serves it piping hot.
When we learned in February that Padma Lakshmi was filming a commercial for Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr., it didn’t seem likely that the Top Chef host would make as big a splash as Paris Hilton did with her infamous car-wash spot for the fast-fo.od company in 2005. But Lakshmi has actually put her own impressively suggestive mark on burger advertising with the new ad, in which she makes sweet-and-savory love to a Western-bacon deluxe on the front steps of a city apartment building. Paris Hilton, please pack your knives and go.
read more….
Tags: 4 quarts, ability, ad rants padma, AdFreak, advertising, amount, ANY, apartment building, awareness, bacon, bacon cheeseburger, barbecue, barbecue sauce, Burger, car wash, Carl, Carl Jr, carl's jr. marketing, carls jr, carls jr ad, carls jr commercial, carls jr commercial girl, carls jr hot chick, carls jr tv ad, Chef, city apartment, commercial, demand, demand generation, example, family, fast food porn, February, food, Fornarina, front steps, generation, Hardee, hardee s, hassle, health, Hilton, hmm, host, hot girl burger commercial, hot girl eating hamburger, hot girl in burger commercial, hot girl licking burger, hot girl on top chef, hot indian girl in burger ad, hot indian girl in commercial, hot indian woman judge, hot pudma lakshmi, infamous car, insurance, Lakshmi, Lindsay, link, Lohan, March, matter, milk, milk advertising, mini, mini van, minivan, missing link, need, none, nudd, Padma, padma burger commercial, Padma Carl's Image, padma carls, padma carls jr, padma did ads for microsoft, padma hardee's, padma lakshmi, padma lakshmi burger, Padma Lakshmi Carl Jr, padma lakshmi love, padma on top chef, padma on twitter, padma photos, padma pics, padma something, Paris, paris hilton, picture, pictures of padma lakshmi, Product, radar, radar screen, research, retro, sauce, screen, Source, splash, Tim Nudd, top, top chef, top chef girl, top chef judge, topchef hot judge, tv ad, user, vampire, van, Week, western bacon cheeseburger commercial girl, year
the greater efficiencies of “digital” mean that the same amount of “advertising” can be achieved with fewer dollars because more waste can be eliminated. The decreases in ad spending in traditional media channels like newspapers will only be partially replaced by ad spending online.
For example, the dollars that used to fund newspaper classified advertising has been replaced by free online classifieds through Craigslist. While newspapers had incremental costs due to materials, printing, labor, and distribution, online classifieds have virtually no incremental cost.
Similarly print advertising, which was based on targeting ads to specific demographics of readerships are being replaced by online ads which can be more finely targeted to even more niche readerships — e.g. contextual advertising. And the revenue models based around cost per click are inherently more efficient (and thus lower cost) than the impression-based revenue models of magazines. Again for every dollar taken out of print advertising, only a few cents are needed to replace it in “digital.”
Agree with me or tell me I’m stupid @acfou
Tags: acfou, advertising, Agree, amount, classified advertising, click, contextual, cost, cost per click, craigslist, decreases, demographics, distribution, dollar, effectiveness, efficiencies, example, incremental cost, incremental costs, labor, magazines, media channels, newspaper, newspapers, niche, online, print, print advertising, printing, revenue, revenue models, spending, traditional vs digital, waste
List of 2009 Superbowl spots on AdAge.com
Lift in search is a great indicator of interest. Modern consumers may be inspired by TV ads, but they usually go online to do more research for themselves, to inform their own purchase decision. The following examples show the lift in search after Superbowl commercials or for launch of products like Subway Footlongs. The use of unique, made-up words makes it easier to detect lift in search (see related post: made up words are great for tracking buzz and search volume ). There is now a correlation between offline paid advertising and online behaviors of modern consumers that can be tracked and ultimately related to sales.
What is harder to do is track lift in search from smaller TV media buys or from terms which are generic — e.g. American Express OPEN, Proctor & Gamble’s TAG (men’s deoorant), etc. And furthermore, people may or may not remember the brand name itself and may type in a more general search query — e.g. “talking baby” instead of” e-Trade” or “dancing lizards” instead of “SoBe LifeWater.” And most people usually forget to type in special URLs specified in the ads. So the opportunity is to 1) use made-up words which can be used to detect lift in search and 2) search-optimize around other more generic terms that people may search for if they remembered the ad, but did not remember the brand name itself.
key learnings include:
1. only the superbowl TV ads generates enough awareness to drive lift in search volume detectable above the noise or normal levels
2. made up words are useful in correlating paid advertising and subsequent online actions (e.g. search) because most users forget or are too lazy to type special URLs
3. is is always better to have real analytics from the site to see when paid campaigns hit; site analytics will also reveal more information about users including demographic information, what they are looking for, and even whether they “convert” to a sale or a desired action — like print off a coupon, etc.
Notice the January spikes for several of the examples below — these are their Superbowl ads in action. But also notice how sharp the spikes are — most of them go back to prior levels within 1 – 3 days (see related post: the ephemerality of the Superbowl halo )
Source: Google Insights for Search
Tags: 2009 superbowl, action, adage, advertising, American, american express, amp, analytics, article article, article id, awareness, Baby, brand, buzz, com, correlation, dancing, decision, demographic information, deoorant, digital, E-Trade, Express, footlongs, Gamble, generic terms, indicator, information, interest, launch, LifeWater, lift, list, lizards, Modern, name, noise, offline, online, OPEN, opportunity, post, print, Proctor, purchase, purchase decision, query, research, sale, search, search and tv advertising, search query, search volume, SEO, site, SoBe, Subway, superbowl, superbowl commercials, TAG, track, Trade, tv ads, tv advertising, tv media, type, URLs, use, volume
Why the Click Is the Wrong Metric for Online Ads
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=134787
There is a whole ruckus around ad networks getting too little credit for helping to drive customers’ awareness and clicks for advertisers. In the past, ad networks wanted to claim credit for type-ins (people going to an advertiser’s site by typing the URL instead of clicking on an ad). They called this “view through” and the ad networks wanted these to be attributed to their showing the ad somewhere on their network.
Now they claim that getting credit for only the last-ad is not enough — the ad the user actually clicked on to get to the advertiser’s site, the one that can actually be tracked and properly attributed.
What’s at stake is the relatively large piece of “direct” or referrer-less traffic. Analytics packages can only assign these to type-ins or bookmarks since there was no referring site to attribute them to, let alone ad creative version, etc.
But while there is demonstrable lift in click rates when display ads and search ads are running at the same time — i.e. they reinforce and complement each other — it does not mean that ad networks can or should claim credit for the lift. After all, advertising running on another network COULD also cause a lift in results of ads running on another network if they are run simultaneously.
So the bottom line is if the click or the visit is not directly attributable, it should not be attributed.
Tags: ad attribution, ad metrics, ad networks claim credit, adage, advertiser, advertisers, advertising, analytics, article article, article id, awareness, bottom line, click, COULD, credit, digital article, display, ins, last-ad accounting, last-ad-attribution model, lift, line, low click through rates, Metric, network, no referrer click, online, past, piece, problem of attribution, referrerless click, ruckus, search, search ads, site, stake, time, traffic, URL, user, version, view, view through, visit
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
