order of magnitude

Reiterating Bearish Thesis on Pinterest

Bearish Thesis on Pinterest

 

– growth was driven by PR hype (and some unscrupulous social tactics); the PR has died off (Source: Pinterst Followed 274 of My Facebook Friends and Notified Them BEFORE Telling Me)

– “Pinterest drives more traffic than Twitter” is misleading because at 1.8% of traffic, it is still an order of magnitude lower than Search (41%) or direct traffic (20%) for commerce sites (Source: The Pinterest Myth)

– Pinterest is a “feature” that others can copy or have already copied — e.g. Facebook curated “Collections” (Source: http://bit.ly/Facebook-collections )

 

– leading affiliate marketers confirm the Pinterest referral potential has been limited at best so far. Amazon researchers published study that shows Pinterest does not generate much sales (Source: http://go-digital.net/blog/2012/08/uh-oh-amazon-researchers-say-pinterest-doesnt-generate-a-lot-of-sales-amzn/ )

 

– Pinterest does not own or have ANY content — all of the content is linked to and served by other content owners, who could decide to disallow Pinterest’s further use of the content by blocking hotlinking.

 

– Pinterest’s original value (carefully curated content) has been obliterated due to the tidal wave of content that has been posted on the site — the value of curation has been lost and it is now no better than Flickr or just a Google Image search

 

– Pinterest’s top categories are “Food & Drink” and “Outdoors” which may not easily translate into online sales. Source:

 

NOTE: The point is that Pinterest may not find a real business model and revenues may never amount to much. But this does not mean that it won’t be bought by some other larger company that wants access to its user base and their activities on the site for other purposes such as ad targeting.

Inline image 1

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013 news No Comments

Search Ads versus Display Ads

UPDATED:  April 10, 2012

AdSafe study shows that a quarter of display ads are never in view on publishers’ websites. And it gets worse from there — 41% never in view for content networks and 46% never in view for ad exchanges. Users are there to view content, not ads. And they are conditioned to avoid the top, right side, and bottoms of web pages (see eye tracking at the bottom of this post).

Image Source: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?id=1008965

Cumulative Time that Digital Display Ads Worldwide Are In-View, by Platform, Q4 2011 (% of total)

ORIGINAL POST:  March 25, 2011

Hands down, search ads beat display ads in click through rates (CTRs).  In every one of the examples below and the several dozen more that I did not screen shot, search is more effective than display because the ads are brought up when the user types in the search term and are looking for something, vs display which is served up alongside content.

search advertising versus display advertising display ads vs search ads CTRs search CTRs vs display CTRs search ads display ads

Facebook display advertising click through rates are even sadder (i.e. worse) as you can see from the chart below — like an order of magnitude

lower (0.024%)
facebook ad click through rate

display ad spending search ad spending emarketer

search ads vs display ads

digital display vs search ads

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eye tracking studies show that most users are already conditioned to avoid looking at the top and right side of web pages because they know that is where banner ads or display ads go.

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, March 25th, 2011 analytics 1 Comment

Two viral campaigns – one drove sales, the other probably didn’t

Samsung’s extreme sheep LED art video went viral and was definitely passed along as the bit.ly stats show below, but whether it drove sales for Samsung, or whether people even knew what it meant (Samsung makes LED lit LCD TVs), no one will really know.

Whereas JetBlue’s All-You-Can-Jet Pass also went viral (similar order of magnitude of shares, again by way of the bit.ly stats) and it led straight to the page about the All-You-Can-Jet Pass where users could then go on to buy it.

In the case of Samsung, the video was cool, entertaining, and unexpected and went viral. But the link to sales was tenuous at best. In the case of JetBlue, the product itself went viral and the link to sales was direct.

Hmm…  which had a larger business impact?  you tell me.

samsung-extreme-sheep-LED-art

jetblue-all-you-can-jet

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 11th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing