Showing posts with label billions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label billions. Show all posts

Friday, June 10, 2011

Twitter Working On Self-Service Ads, Which Make Facebook And Google Billions (GOOG)


Mark Zuck and Dick Costolo

Twitter is planning on offering a self-serve ad buying solution for smaller advertisers later this year, the company's president of global revenue told Mashable.

Right now, Twitter sells ads directly to the biggest advertisers, which is fine, but a big part of the revenue of the web's advertising giants, especially Google and Yahoo, comes from automated ad buying.

This allows small businesses and other small advertisers to buy ads on the platform without having to dedicate a big sales force to them. 

But it's not just a smart and obvious way to increase revenue. It shows that Twitter is now relatively confident it has found the ad formats that work for it. Since they've been introduced, Twitter's ad formats have been mostly "experimental": trying to see what produces returns and what advertisers like. It's better to do that when you just work with agencies and clients who know online advertising and are willing to take chances and do experiments with you on your big ad platform. 

But to open to small businesses, you need to have figured out what products work and which ones don't, and have standardized them enough that you can offer them to anyone through an online form. 

One of the many ways in which Twitter is becoming a big, grown-up company.

Don't Miss: Jack Dorsey Keeps Winning →

Please follow SAI: Silicon Alley Insider on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:







Twitter Working On Self-Service Ads, Which Make Facebook And Google Billions (GOOG)


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/pHPynfwpWZk/twitter-ad-buying-2011-6

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Why Facebook Is Making Billions Off Ads: They Work

Whenever people talk about Facebook Ads (or even more generally "Can Facebook justify their $50bn valuation?") the conversation always tends to swing around to how poorly Facebook Ads perform.

That drives me crazy.

For the last four months Facebook Ads have been the single best source for paid traffic for my startup CoderStack - I pay less for better converting traffic. 

This wasn't always the case. When I started out running Facebook adverts I saw low click-through rates (CTRs) and expensive costs per click (CPCs). Initially I was left with the same impression as everyone else: this doesn't work.

But part of me didn't quite believe that, so I set out to read everything I could on Facebook Ad optimizations, and when I discovered that wasn't much, I started putting time (and money) into running experiments. After about two months worth of experiments my ad performance had increased dramatically (literally a hundred-fold). I'd discovered that with a little work Facebook Ads can be hugely profitable.

I gave a talk on this topic at the London ProductCamp in February and more than a few of the audience were surprised at how much difference tweaking ad copy and targeting can make. I think what convinced people at the talk more than anything was the hard-data, when I said "I'm paying 1p/click" that's when the audience really started paying attention.

Unfortunately there's very very little hard data out there to convince people about how effective Facebook Ads can be, while I was willing to share my real-world performance data at an unconference I'm hesitant to publish it in public where my competitors could use it to compete against me.

Given the inherent commercial nature of advertising everyone else seems to have the same opinion on secrecy so very little real hard data gets published, and most of the data that gets published tends to be from ad campaigns that haven't done well (as the information doesn't give competitors any advantage).

To rectify that (and also to test my optimization skills) I decided to run an ad campaign from scratch for one of my side projects (my webcomic Theory of Geek) and publish the data.

In the interest of openness I should declare at this point that I got approval from Facebook prior to publishing this data, but that they didn't see this data beforehand, they just knew I was writing an article about Facebook Ads and wanted to publish ad campaign data.

Here's the screenshot of the Facebook Ads Campaign five days after I started it (I've blurred out some of the ad names but none of the other details have been changed):

facebook ads

The important column to look at is CPC as that's how much we're paying per ad click, the worst performing advert was at £0.58 and the best performing was at £0.003. That's a difference of 200x. For those of you who aren't familiar with buying ads, a CPC of below £0.03 is practically unheard of on any other ad platforms, and what we're getting on Facebook is 10 times cheaper than that.

Of course you could argue that as I'm advertising a webcomic I'm going to get a much higher CTR (and thus lower CPC) than if I was advertising something more "serious".

For my software developer job board to target software developers I am paying more than in this ad campaign, my best ad for CoderStack was 3x more expensive than my best ad for Theory of Geek. But despite that I'm still paying an order of magnitude less on Facebook than I'm paying on any other ad networks.

I'd also like to comment on how this entire ad campaign and all the optimizations were done with a budget of under £20. Even if you're running a bootstrapped startup, you'd have to be crazy not to at least experiment with buying Facebook Ads given the low cost of experimenting and the high potential upside.

I plan to write some more articles on Facebook Ads, covering the practical side of doing ad optimizations and also what I think Facebook should be doing in order to make their ad platform better for advertisers, if you'd be interested in reading them then follow me on twitter @imranghory where I'll post links to my articles as I write them.

UPDATE: Just to clarify a couple of points that people have asked about:

  1. My ad campaign targeted only the US and UK markets, CPC was slightly lower for the US than for the UK due to a higher CTR.

  2. Overall engagment seems to be fairly high, on par with organic search traffic. Bounce rate was 35%, and non-bounce visitors viewed an average of 4.5 pages. For CoderStack the figures are in the same sort of ballpark.

This post originally appeared at Imran's Blog.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:






Why Facebook Is Making Billions Off Ads: They Work


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/J_lXUHvlZDk/facebook-ads-are-the-cheapest-traffic-youll-ever-buy-2011-4

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

These Startups Want You To Pay For Stuff With Your Phone, Beat Apple And Google, And Make Billions In the Process (AAPL, GOOG, EBAY)

money on fire

We're tantalizingly close to mobile payments. Whether it's via SMS, contactless NFC chips, facial recognition (!), dongles that let you swipe your credit cards or other means, plenty of startups want a piece of the pie.

Why should I care?

Cash has many disadvantages, like security and traceability. If you could pay for stuff with your phone, that would be very convenient. In the developing world where entrepreneurs are leapfrogging our current technology, mobile payments and banking are having a huge impact.

Paying for things with your phone would be more convenient and let you track your expenses better.

Why is this such a big deal?

Because it's a huge market. Think of all the cash transactions that occur around the clock around the world. Any company that could get a 1% cut of that would be enormous.

What are mobile payments going to look like, in practice?

No one knows for sure. Every startup has its own twist on it. Some people are betting heavily on NFC chips, which are probably coming to the next generation of smartphones, and would let you pay for things without touching anything but your phone. Some people are betting on using SMS, linking your credit card to that. Some people are making credit card readers that can plug into phones.

It's part of the reason why this market is exciting: everyone is trying a bunch of different things.

Do startups have a chance?

It's an uphill battle, perhaps moreso than for even most startups.

First of all, anything having to do with payments is very complex. There are a host of regulatory issues, as well as security and fraud issues to disentangle.

Second of all, the big guys all want a piece of the pie. If Google and Apple put an NFC chip on their phones, they're going to want to own mobile transactions. PayPal is also making a big mobile payments push.

And finally, distribution is a big challenge. It's a two sided market: for a payment method to work, both buyers and sellers have to have it. And getting merchants to adopt something is very hard, because there are millions of them and they're not usually tech-savvy. Consumers are also not used to paying stuff for mobile, and most of them don't see it as a problem that there's no easy way to pay with your phone. In fact, they may be right: mobile payments are popular in other countries of the world, but that doesn't mean it will be in the US and Europe.

Then again--high stakes and high risk of failure? That's regular for a startup.

Boku lets you pay for stuff online with your mobile phone

Online commerce with the phone is promising. Instead of having to pull out a credit card, you just plug in your phone number, get a text message with a confirmation number, enter it, and boom! You're done. Sales with mobile payments convert much better than PayPal. It also reaches people who don't have credit cards like teenagers.

But because the payment goes through the carrier billing system, carriers have to be on board, and they take huge transaction fees, from 50 to 70%. This has limited this kind of payment to virtual goods on Facebook and other small items.




Zong is Boku's European brother


Zong works like Boku, but it's based in Switzerland and is more international. They have partnerships with more carriers and so cover more countries.




mFoundry tries to tackle the distribution problem by going through banks


As noted earlier, the big problem for these startups is to get distribution. So by working with banks and other companies, mFoundry can get into your phone easier. For example, mFoundry was behind Starbucks' payment app.

Problem is: if you need other people to reach your customers, you're at your partners' mercy.




View more at Business Insider

See Also:







These Startups Want You To Pay For Stuff With Your Phone, Beat Apple And Google, And Make Billions In the Process (AAPL, GOOG, EBAY)


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/rd4oy44Q_80/mobile-payments-startups-2011-3

Friday, February 25, 2011

GROUPON: $760 Million In Revenue Last Year, Billions This Year

Andrew Mason, Groupon

Groupon did $760 million in revenue last year, up from $33 million the year before, according to a memo CEO Andrew Mason sent out to his troops, which was picked up by the Wall Street Journal.

Mason says the company is aiming for billions this year.

For some context, the nearest competitor to Groupon, LivingSocial says it will do $500 million in revenue this year.

Mason told employees in his memo, "By this time next year, we will either be on our way to becoming one of the great technology brands that define our generation, or a cool idea by people who were out executed and out innovated by others that were smarter and harder working."

Other details from the memo:

  • Groupon generated 1/3 of its revenue from international markets.
  • It has 51 million subscribers, and hopes to get to 150 million by year end.
  • It wants $1 billion in revenue from new products this year.
  • It employs 4,000 people, and is in 565 cities.

Join the conversation about this story »






GROUPON: $760 Million In Revenue Last Year, Billions This Year


Backlink: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/typepad/alleyinsider/silicon_alley_insider/~3/7veZuJmjowg/groupon-memo-2011-2