Have a look at the 2 pictures below taken at a mall-attached large chain retailer. Not a SINGLE customer in the store. Practically every rack had a red and white sale sign on it. Look at the multiple sizes of each item that have to be made available.
Now consider this.
What is the probability of someone walking through the store to this location, finding an article of clothing that is subjectively pleasing and desirable enough for the person to pick it up and consider the price. Consider if this is a nice to have or need to have item. Further consider the price and whether it is higher or lower than the clearing price — the price at which the user (in that particular user’s mind) thinks it is a good deal and decides to buy it. What is known is the quantity of work needed to inventory, merchandise, display all the products. What is not known very well is the probability of a sale for any or all of the items in the store.
Further consider the redundant inventory of similar (or the same) generic products — redundant because multiple stores attached to the same mall carry pretty much the same generic stuff. Even brand names provide little differentiation or value add. And celebrity designers and endorsers such as Kimora, Cindy, Kathy, or even Jaclyn Smith don’t help. The entire Kimora section was just as deserted as the second photo in this bunch.
Tags: article, brand, brand names, bunch, carry, celebrity, chain, chain retailer, Cindy, clearing, clothing, customer, deal, designers, differentiation, display, endorsers, generic products, inventory, item, Jaclyn, jaclyn smith, Kathy, Kimora, location, look, mall, merchandise, mind, multiple stores, person, photo, Practically, price, probability, quantity, rack, retailer, sale, section, Sign, single, Smith, someone, store, stuff, user, value, Work
Source: http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/17/facecash-mobile-payment-apps-are-like-real-money-only-with-your/
ThinkLink’s FaceCash mobile payment system has debuted several apps (for BlackBerry, iPhone, and Android devices) which allow you to pay for things merely by scanning your phone — and showing off the attached photo to confirm it is, in fact, your own money that you’re spending. You sign up, link your FaceCash account to your personal checking and savings account, and you’re good to go with participating merchants. The apps can also store credit card numbers and banking information (perfect for when you lose your phone during a night of heavy partying), making it easier to leave your wallet or purse behind… or so they say. Sadly, FaceCash currently only has merchants in California, and really, who wants to live there?
FaceCash mobile payment apps are like real money, only with your face on it instead of someone smart originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:23:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink | 
ThinkLink | Email this | Comments
Tags: account, android, apps, banking, banking information, BlackBerry, California, card, checking, checking and savings account, credit, credit card numbers, EDT, email, Engadget, face, FaceCash, fact, information, iPhone, Jun, link, merchants, mobile payment, money, nbsp, night, partying, payment, Permalink, phone, photo, purse, real money, Sign, someone, Source, spending, system, ThinkLink, Thu, tmpPost, use, wallet
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
From the Associated Press
- 12:28 AM EST, December 19, 2008
Looking to beef up your mojo this holiday season?
Burger King Corp. may have just the thing. The home of the Whopper has launched a new men’s body spray called “Flame.” The company describes the spray as “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.”
The fragrance is on sale at New York City retailer Ricky’s NYC in stores and online for a limited time for $3.99.
Burger King is marketing the product through a Web site featuring a photo of its King character reclining fireside and naked but for an animal fur strategically placed to not offend.
The marketing ploy is the latest in a string of viral ad campaigns by the company.
Source: http://www.courant.com/entertainment/la-on-burgerking19-2008dec19,0,5172867.story
Tags: ad campaigns, animal, animal fur, Associated, body, body spray, Burger, burger king, character, company, company source, Corp, December, EST, fireside, Flame, fragrance, fur, hint, holiday, holiday season, home, King, limited time, marketing, meat, mojo, new men, New York City, NYC, online, photo, ploy, Press, Product, retailer, Ricky, sale, scent, season, seduction, site, spray, string, thing, time, viral marketing, Web, Whopper, whopper virgins
2009 is the year of the “open agency model.” Many of the largest brands have declared that they are going “open agency mode” in search of lower cost, greater efficiency, and possibly better work. But while this idea may be good in theory, it is very difficult in practice. Having run a “virtual company” since 1996, I know of the challenges, as well as the upside. And the conventional wisdom of “you get what you pay for” holds very true here. I’ve outsourced to China and India to varying degrees of success and usually it took more time to communicate and re-communicate, do and re-do to get things right. And it ended up costing more overall, despite lower unit costs. Furthermore, most clients are brand experts of their own brand, but may not have the depth of experience in managing complex, global deployments … or perhaps even experience in managing photo shoots. Although it may be fun to go on photo shoots, but that doesn’t mean clients can manage that themselves. And having an inexperienced, small agency do it may not be that much more efficient either.
Anheuser-Busch Whacks Retainers for Its Agencies
2009 has also been declared the year of search and social marketing. Many of the biggest brands now realize they must do something in search in order to be found when users are out looking for something. Knowing that 80% of online journeys begin with search (Forrester April 2008), it is more important than ever to be “findable” — after all, if they can’t find you, you don’t exist. Companies are also looking for efficiencies in social marketing — literally having people carry forth their message or amplify it for free. This is a good move because most modern users trust their peers far more than they trust an advertiser’s ad message anyway, according to countless studies.
Tags: adage, advertiser, Agency, agency model, Anheuser, anheuser busch, article article, article id, brand, Busch, challenges, China, company, conventional wisdom, cost, countless studies, deployments, depth, digital strategy, efficiencies, efficiency, experience, forrester, Forrester April, fun, idea, India, journeys, marketing, message, mode, model, move, online, open agency model, order, peers, photo, photo shoots, practice, Retainers, run, search, search marketing, SEO, social marketing, something, success, theory, time, unit, upside, virtual company, Whacks, wisdom, Work, year
