Skip to main content
Instapage

Facebook Marketplace update: 8% more spend is being pushed to Audience Network

Facebook has made no secret of its aggressive plans for broadening the market for its Audience Network. In a bid to attract publishers, the company officially adopted header bidding in March, and it has tweaked some of its stances on transparency to better court brand-oriented advertising dollars.

But for many direct response advertisers, Audience Network is already a major piece of their advertising strategy — a development that stands to continue. In the latest quarterly Facebook benchmark report (registration required) I drafted for Nanigans, my employer, it’s clear Facebook is also increasing the amount of ad spend going to off-Facebook sources.

This expansion has impacted long-term Facebook ad pricing trends, helping flatten cost increases thanks to increased supply, and it has created additional opportunities for direct response advertisers to gain particular advantages.

The stats

Examining an identical set of advertisers that chose to activate Audience Network over both Q4 2016 and Q1 2017, the share of spend going to off-Facebook sources rose 8 percent. Among a subset of the sample group who enabled Audience Network in Q1 2016 through Q1 2017, the share of spend going to off-Facebook sources has jumped 31 percent year over year.

Like other Facebook Marketing Partners (FMPs), Nanigans software provides these advertisers with performance metrics that can be parsed by on-Facebook vs. Audience Network delivery location. As observed previously, these breakdowns showcase downstream action rates and costs that have justified keeping Audience Network enabled over time across all or most direct response campaigns.

As Facebook has grown its footprint and slowly turned up the volume of advertiser spend going to off-Facebook sources, a likely ancillary benefit has been a general flattening of price increases. Audience Network has helped alleviate issues related to limited in-feed ad inventory and concerns about ad load. This is perhaps best illustrated by mapping year-over-year global CPM increases on Facebook from Q3 2014 through Q1 2017.

As seen below, between Q1 2016 and Q1 2017, global CPMs went from $5.94 to $6.42 (+8 percent). That’s far below prior year-over-year Q1 CPM increases of +39 percent and +273 percent in 2016 and 2015, respectively.

With Audience Network having helped stabilize Facebook ad prices over the long term, advertisers should have an easier time mapping out expected costs and returns on the platform.

However, for advertisers choosing not to turn on Audience Network for their campaigns, there may be more volatility, particularly during in-demand periods of the year. Audience Network still represents only a fraction of overall spend on the platform, but the exact percentage can vary significantly between advertisers and seasons.

For lack of a better term, Audience Network is a weapon in Facebook’s arsenal to hit your performance targets. It’s a major asset if and when advertiser demand spikes against your target audience. Recent expansions in inventory and capabilities make it more valuable in this role.

At Nanigans, we generally recommend advertisers turn on Audience Network for all of their campaigns to start, but keep an eye on the split of performance metrics between Facebook native and off-Facebook sources. If the comparative performance and extra reach aren’t worth the cost for a particular campaign, it’s easy enough to turn it off with minimal waste.

However, with Facebook being so focused on the continued adoption and success of Audience Network, thus far it’s been good about not directing spend off News Feed if the expected performance is likely to be significantly below the campaign’s on-Facebook metrics.



via Marketing Land

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

6 types of negative SEO to watch out for

The threat of negative SEO is remote but daunting. How easy is it to for a competitor to ruin your rankings, and how do you protect your site? But before we start, let’s make sure we’re clear on what negative SEO is, and what it definitely isn’t.Negative SEO is a set of activities aimed at lowering a competitor’s rankings in search results. These activities are more often off-page (e.g., building unnatural links to the site or scraping and reposting its content); but in some cases, they may also involve hacking the site and modifying its content.Negative SEO isn’t the most likely explanation for a sudden ranking drop. Before you decide someone may be deliberately hurting your rankings, factor out the more common reasons for ranking drops. You’ll find a comprehensive list here.Negative off-page SEOThis kind of negative SEO targets the site without internally interfering with it. Here are the most common shapes negative off-page SEO can take.Link farmsOne or two spammy links likely won’…

Another SEO tool drops the word “SEO”

This guest post is by Majestic’s Marketing Director, Dixon Jones, who explains the reasons for their recent name change.
Majestic, the link intelligence database that many SEOs have come to use on a daily basis, has dropped the “SEO” from it’s brand and from its domain name, to become majestic.com. Since most people won’t have used Google’s site migration tool before, here’s what it looks like once you press the “go” button:

In actual fact – there’s a minor bug in the tool. The address change is to the https version of majestic.com (which GWT makes us register as a separate site) but that message incorrectly omits that. Fortunately, elsewhere in GWT its clear the omission is on Google’s side, not a typo from the SEO. It is most likely that the migration tool was developed before the need for Google to have separate verification codes for http and https versions of the site.
The hidden costs of a name change
There were a few “nay sayers” on Twitter upset that Majestic might be deserting it…

Software Review Site TrustRadius Has A New Way to Treat Reviews Obtained Through Vendors

Online user reviews are the most powerful marketing technique for influencing purchase decisions. But do they accurately represent the views of most users?Today, business software review platform TrustRadius is announcing a new way — called trScore — to handle the bias introduced in reviews by users obtained through the vendor of the reviewed software product. The site says more than two million software buyers visit each year to check out its product reviews.To understand trScore, let’s first look at TrustRadius’ approach.The site says it authenticates all users through their LinkedIn profiles. It also requires users to answer eight to ten questions about the product, in order to weed out users having no familiarity. Additionally, a staff person reads every review before it is posted, and the site says about three percent of reviews are rejected for not meeting guidelines.As for the reviews themselves, TrustRadius puts them into two main buckets: independently-sourced reviews and ven…