difference
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5561454/sony-lcd-3dtv-gets-disappointing-first-look
Gary Merson at HD Guru has seen Sony’s new KDL-55HX800 LCD 3DTV live and in person. His first take? Even a slight tilt of the head makes you see double and lose the 3D effect. Uh oh.
Merson found a whole range of things to be troubled about in his time with the Sony: double-vision, color shift, relatively shallow depth. But the main issue—as Mark reported at this year’s CES—is that LCD and OLED screens just aren’t up to 3D. At least not in the way that plasma displays clearly are.
It’s also worth mentioning that the HX800 Merson viewed is actually the lowest end 3D model Sony offers, and in fact is technically a “3D-ready” set, meaning that it uses a separate sync transmitter instead of the integrated 3D functionality of the LX900 series. We won’t know how big, if any, a difference that makes until we’re able to compare the two side by side. But for now, the early returns suggest that plasma’s still the early king of 3D technology. [HD Guru]
Tags: 3d effect, 3d technology, 3dtv, CES, color, color shift, D. At, depth, difference, double vision, DTV, early returns, effect, end, fact, functionality, Gary Merson, guru, hd, head, issue, KDL, King, LCD, Mark, mdash, model, OLED, oled screens, person, plasma, plasma displays, range, ready set, series, shallow depth, shift, side, sony, sony lcd, Source, sync, take, technology, tilt, time, tmpPost, transmitter, way, year
Source: http://gizmodo.com/5559015/googles-new-indexing-system-is-fully-caffeinated
Google’s latest web indexing system, the tool that pre-scans the entire web to have a ready answer to your search query, promises “50 percent fresher results for web searches.” It’s called Caffeine. And it comes with staggering Google search stats.
The main difference with Caffeine is that, rather than search one entire group of sites (represented in that lead graphic as a layer), then another, less prioritized group of sites, then yet another less prioritized group of sites, everything with the Caffeine algorithm is pretty much indexed constantly. Teased for several months now, Caffeine is the sort of update Google needs to follow the pace of searching services like Twitter. And indeed, Google will need to maintain/continue such innovations to keep up—our world is translated from analog to digital in more, quicker ways every day.
So now for those wicked Google stats:
• Every second Caffeine processes hundreds of thousands of pages in parallel.
• If this were a pile of paper it would grow three miles taller every second
• Caffeine takes up nearly 100 million gigabytes of storage in one database
• Caffeine adds new information at a rate of hundreds of thousands of gigabytes per day.
• You would need 625,000 of the largest iPods to store that much information
• If these iPods were stacked end-to-end they would go for more than 40 miles.
[Google]
Tags: 100 million, algorithm, analog, analog to digital, answer, bull, Caffeine, database, day, difference, entire web, everything, fresher, gigabytes, google, google search, Group, hundreds of thousands, indexing, indexing system, information, innovations, ipods, layer, mdash, pace, Paper, parallel, percent, pile, pile of paper, query, rate, ready answer, search, search query, search stats, searching services, Second, sort, Source, Storage, system, Teased, tmpPost, Tool, twitter, update, Web, World
Enjoy unlimited travel with our All-You-Can-Jet Pass! For just $599* you can take JetBlue anywhere you like, as often as you like, from September 8 to October 8, 2009. Use your All-You-Can-Jet Pass for business, for pleasure, to visit your favorite cities or to meet with a client. You might as well just do it all! With more than 50 cities to choose from, and for just $599, it’s a deal you can’t pass up.
About the Pass
- $599 for a month of unlimited travel, any available seat
- Domestic taxes and fees included
- International and Puerto Rico taxes and fees not included
- On sale through Friday, August 21, 2009, or while supplies last
- Travel Dates: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 through Thursday, October 8, 2009
- Each flight must be booked no later than 11:59 p.m. MDT three days prior to the flight’s scheduled departure.
- Nonrefundable/nontransferable/no name changes permitted
- Customers who already have a flight booked during the pass travel period can pay the difference to upgrade to the pass by calling 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583), prompt 4.
- Each All-You-Can-Jet Pass is eligible for 35 TrueBlue points. Flights booked on the pass are not available for additional TrueBlue points.
To purchase an All-You-Can-Jet Pass:
Call 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583), option 4. You do not have to be a TrueBlue member at the time of purchase, but a TrueBlue number is required to book all flights.To join TrueBlue, click here; it’s free.
To book flights with your All-You-Can-Jet Pass:
- Before calling to reserve your flight, please visit jetblue.com to check availability and select flight times.
- Call 1-800-JETBLUE (538-2583), prompt 4.
- Provide your pass number which is your original reservation number.
- Provide your TrueBlue number.
- You may only book one flight per city per day; if a violation of this policy is found, JetBlue will honor only the last booking made and cancel the customer’s other bookings from that city on that day.
- Each flight must be booked no later than 11:59 p.m. MDT three days prior to the flight’s scheduled departure.
- You can change/cancel flights for no fee with three (3) or more days notice; changes or cancellations to flight bookings made after 11:59 p.m. MDT three days prior to the flight’s scheduled departure will be charged standard JetBlue change/cancel fees.
To change or cancel All-You-Can-Jet Pass travel:
- Greater than three (3) days before a flight: $0 change/cancellation fees
- Less than three (3) days before a flight: JetBlue’s standard change/cancel fees apply
In the case of a no-show, the customer’s pass will be placed on hold, any reserved pass flights will be canceled, and no new flight segments wil be able to be booked until the customer pays a $100 no-show penalty.
*Other important restrictions apply. For complete details, please read the Full Terms and Conditions.
18,000+ clicks in 4 hours
Tags: All, All-You-Can-Jet, August, august 21, availability, book flights, booking, bookings, business, Call, can jet, cancel, Change, City, click, clickhere, client, com, customer, Dates, day, deal, departure, difference, Enjoy, favorite cities, fee, flight, flight times, friday, International, Jet, jet blue unlimited, jetblue, ly, MDT, member, month, name, Nonrefundable, number, October, october 8, option, Pass, period, pleasure, policy, Puerto Rico, purchase, reservation, reservation number, sale, seat, September, Thursday, time, travel, travel period, TrueBlue, Tuesday, unlimited travel, use, violation, visit
Taking the top box office results for each of 52 weekends from the past 10 complete years (1998 – 2008; Source: IMDB.com) we see consistently that occasions like Valentines, Memorial Day, July 4th, and Thanksgiving show increased movie going activity. People have more time during these holidays to go to the movies and Valentines is a date+movie occasion. Also, during the summer, many people go to the movie theatre to escape the heat so there is an overall hump every year during the summer months — from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
People go out during Valentines, Memorial Day, July 4th, and Thanksgiving. And they still spend what they planned to spend — 2 tickets for movie — they didn’t buy 2 more tickets and see a second movie on the same date or holiday weekend. If they had several good movies to choose from (often, they don’t), they would choose to spend the finite dollars on the one movie they really wanted to see. The overall movie spending “pie” did not increase much, if any, year over year.
1998 $4,055,194,733 n/a
1999 $4,253,601,768 5%
2000 $4,496,554,005 6%
2001 $5,003,433,737 11%
2002 $5,489,974,199 10%
2003 $5,581,797,720 2%
2004 $ 5,697,299,530 2%
2005 $ 5,524,566,579 -3%
2006 $ 5,660,826,625 +2%
2007 $ 5,968,027,963 +5%
2008 $ 5,887,193,490 -1%
The chart below shows a red line which is the average of all 10 years. The 10 thin blue lines are the annual lines from1998 – 2008, inclusive and these are plotted as actual dollars. They come out right on top of each other.
|
Movie advertising, which runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, has failed to noticeably increase the overall spending year-round or even during specific times. The chart below shows the differentials (difference between an annual line and the 10-yr average line). These all hover closely in the +$50M and -$50M band. The amplitude of the 10-yr average (red line) is larger than $50M in the summer hump — implying that the average change in movie ticket sales due to normal seasonality is larger than the change in amplitude caused by ALL movie advertising combined.
And the summer “hump” is due to actual demand (people going out to movie theatres, some to escape the heat) not due to advertising. The only effect of advertising is to share-shift from one movie to another — the total spending remains consistent and even seasonal variations are consistent — a “zero-sum game.”
|
All-Time USA Box office
Source: IMDB.com
| Rank |
Title |
USA Box Office |
| 1. |
Titanic (1997) |
$600,779,824 |
| 2. |
The Dark Knight (2008) |
$533,316,061 |
| 3. |
Star Wars (1977) |
$460,935,665 |
| 4. |
Shrek 2 (2004) |
$436,471,036 |
| 5. |
E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) |
$434,949,459 |
| 6. |
Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace(1999) |
$431,065,444 |
| 7. |
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest (2006) |
$423,032,628 |
| 8. |
Spider-Man (2002) |
$403,706,375 |
| 9. |
Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) |
$380,262,555 |
| 10. |
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King(2003) |
$377,019,252 |
| 11. |
Spider-Man 2 (2004) |
$373,377,893 |
| 12. |
The Passion of the Christ (2004) |
$370,270,943 |
| 13. |
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009) |
$367,614,540 |
| 14. |
Jurassic Park (1993) |
$356,784,000 |
| 15. |
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) |
$340,478,898 |
| 16. |
Finding Nemo (2003) |
$339,714,367 |
| 17. |
Spider-Man 3 (2007) |
$336,530,303 |
| 18. |
Forrest Gump (1994) |
$329,691,196 |
| 19. |
The Lion King (1994) |
$328,423,001 |
| 20. |
Shrek the Third (2007) |
$320,706,665 |
| 21. |
Transformers (2007) |
$318,759,914 |
| 22. |
Iron Man (2008) |
$318,298,180 |
| 23. |
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone (2001) |
$317,557,891 |
| 24. |
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull(2008) |
$317,011,114 |
| 25. |
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring(2001) |
$313,837,577 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tags: 10 years, 50m, 52 weekends, activity, advertising, All, amplitude, average, band, box, box office hits, box office results, Caribbean, Change, chart, com, Crystal Skull, Dark, date, date movie, day, demand, difference, differentials, E.T, effect, effect of advertising, Episode, escape, Extra, Forrest Gump, game, harry potter, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, heat, holiday, holiday weekend, holidays, hover, hump, IMDB, Indiana, Iron Man, July, Jurassic Park, King, Knight, labor, labor day, line, Lord, Man, Memorial, memorial day, movie, movie box office seasonality trends, movie theatre, movie ticket, norm, occasion, occasions, Office, office 1, office source, pie, Pirates of the Caribbean, rank, rank title, red line, Revenge, right, Rings, seaso, seasonal variations, seasonality, show, Shrek, spending, Spider Man, star, sum, summer, Terrestrial, Thanksgiving, The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings, The Passion of the Christ, ticket, ticket sales, time, time usa, Titanic, titanic 1997, Title, top, top box office, transformers, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, USA, usa box office, Valentines, weekend, year
no difference. they are all small “windows” in on specific information that users want — e.g. sports scores, news feeds, local weather, etc. – that users install on pages that they own or control. The difference is what the makers choose to call it.
Yahoo -widget
Google – gadget
Facebook – app
Tags: app, control, difference, Facebook, facebook app, gadget, google, google gadget, information, local weather, news, sports scores, weather, widget, Yahoo, yahoo widget
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, advertising effectiveness on facebook, Advertising metrics, advertising on facebook, Adwords, adwords average ctr, Amazon, apps, attention, augustine fou blog, automated click fraud, average ad price on facebook, average advertising response rates, average click rate on facebook ads, average click shared content on facebook, average click through rate Facebook ads, average click through rate for facebook, average click through rate for facebook ads, average clicks per facebook app, average cost facebooks clicks, average cost of Facebook ad, average cost per click for facebook, average cost per click rates, average cost per month to serve display ads, average CPC facebook, average CPC for Facebook, average CPCs, average cpm click through rate, average cpm facebook 2010, average CPM on Facebook, average ctr "LinkedIn", average ctr facebook 2009, average ctr facebook ads, average ctr on facebook, average CTR on facebook ad network, average display click through rates, average facebook ad costs, average facebook ad ctr, average facebook campaign costs, average facebook click through rate, average facebook cost per click, average facebook CTR, average metrics facebook ads, backend, Benchmark Facebook, benchmark for impressions for an ad campaig..., benchmarking facebook, benchmarking in social marketing, benchmarks, Benchmarks facebook, Best Facebook CTR, Best Facebook CTR You Have Seen?, beta, campaign effectiveness useful metrics, Chief Digital, circle, click, click farm, click fraud, click per impressions facebook ads, click rate on facebook ads, click through rates on facebook ads, commerce, control, cost of making a facebook ad, cost per advertising in facebook, costs for facebook advertising, CPCs, cpcs card photo, cpm advertising by demographic, cpm benchmarks, cpm ctr cpc, CPMs, crm on facebook, CTR - Clickthrough Rates on Facebook CPC Ads, ctr ad metrics, ctr facebook, CTR facebook ads, ctr in facebook, ctr on facebook, CTRs, decimal places, difference, difference between click and impression on ..., 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, effectiveness of facebook advertising, email marketing metrics benchmarks 2009, Examples of Advertisement Benchmarking, facebok ctr, Facebook, facebook ad average ctr, facebook ad benchmarks, facebook ad campaign rates, facebook ad click through rate, facebook ad cpc, facebook ad ctr, facebook ad effectiveness, facebook ad impressions, facebook ad in increse in impression, facebook ad metrics, facebook ad rates, facebook ad specs, facebook ads Actions Rate, facebook ads average ctr, facebook ads click rate, facebook ads click through rate, facebook ads cost, facebook ads cpm rates, facebook ads CTR, facebook ads effectiveness, facebook ads effectiveness 2010, facebook ads examples, facebook ads impressions, facebook ads impressions vs clicks, facebook ads low ctr, facebook ads market cpm rate, facebook ads metrics, facebook advertising, Facebook Advertising Benchmarks, facebook advertising click rate, facebook advertising click through rate, facebook advertising clicks, facebook advertising clicks impressions exp..., facebook advertising cost, facebook advertising costs, facebook advertising effectiveness, facebook advertising impressions, facebook advertising kpi, Facebook advertising metrics, facebook advertising rates, facebook advertising software, FACEBOOK ADVERTISING VS GOOGLE ADSENSE MOVI..., facebook average CPCs, Facebook Average CTR, facebook benchmark ctr, facebook benchmarking, facebook benchmarks, Facebook Click Fraud, facebook click through rate, facebook click through rates, facebook clickthrough rate, facebook cost cpm, facebook cpc advertising, Facebook CPCs, facebook CTR, facebook ctr rates, Facebook CTRs, facebook display advertising, Facebook eCPMs, facebook effective CPMs, facebook good click through rate, facebook kpi, facebook marketing, facebook marketing rates, facebook metrics, facebook statistics, facebook stats, facebook stats and metrics, facebook targeted advertising effectivness, facebook what's a good cpm rate?, facebook's advertising costs, faecbook metrics, flickr, Fraud, friend, good click through rate for facebook, good CTR for facebook ads, good facebook ads, good kpi's for a facebook app, grail, Group, healthcare, holy grail, how effective are facebook ads, how effective facebook advertising, how to lower costs on facebook advertising, how to run effective facebook ads, hyped, increase your clickthrough rate on facebook, interface, inurl:blog intext:facebook ad, is advertising on facebook effective, Is Facebook Advertising Effective, izea, lot, management, management interface, marketing, mass, metrics for facebook ads, metrics what do advertisers look for, music, Netflix, none, number, page, PayPerPost, photo, potential, price of facebook ad, 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, viral advertising metrics, visual discovery, what are click rates for facebook ads, what is a good click through rate for facebook ads?, what is a good click through rate on facebo..., what is a good CTR on facebook, what is a good ctr on facebook ads, what is a good facebook click through rate, what is a good facebook ctr, what is considered good CTR on facebook ads, whats a good click rate for facebook ads, whats a good click through rate, whats a good click through rate facebook, whats a good click through rate on facebook, whats a good ctr facebook, whats a good ctr for facebook ad, whats a good ctr on craigslist, whats a good ctr on ebay, whats a good ctr on facebook, whats a good ctr on facebook ad impressions, whats a good ctr on facebook banner, whats a good ctr on facebook conversion rate, whats a good ctr on gmail, whats a good ctr on google, whats a good ctr on hotmail, whats a good ctr on msn, whats a good ctr on myspace, whats a good ctr on twitter, whats a good ctr on yahoo, whats a good ctr on yahoo mail, whats a good ctr on youtube, whats a good ctr online, worst Facebook CTR, YouTube
Recent Articles by Dr. Augustine Fou
