Or they could 4.9x the price to show the current advertiser a better ROI and encourage higher spend from them, while still having the 4000 extra impressions to sell.
But doesn’t that then mean that many more product sales are taking place as opposed to the same number of sales spread across more impressions? I don’t see how many more sales can take place without users spending more money or the number of users going up and my original point was that meta is surely tapping into that addressable market as it is. There are only so many consumer dollars to go around.
If Meta can use AI to make niche B2B advertising work better then there's still a lot of room for growth. Like, if there was a way to get AI to advertise my product to people asking frustrated questions about how to deploy their desktop apps, I'd be very interested in an offer like that.
IMO there isn’t much of an upper limit, as long as roas is decent the limit exists elsewhere (manufacturing, people, etc) and any gains in those areas means more advertising spend is viable.
this one screams 'citation needed' and is not what I'm hearing from people in the field. Would anyone care to share their experience?
So even if automatic (black box) targeting merely maintains its effectiveness, it’s relatively better for advertisers to shift spend towards it at the margin.
That (the usurping the throne from Google part) seems wrong to me. Not sure if this has changed in recent years, but Google and Facebook/Meta ads always seemed very different to me. I.e. Google had such specific search intent so it was possible to target items at near the point of purchase so effectively. Facebook/Insta ads were more about introducing people to new products by knowing so much demographic info about people.
In my experience, the ROI on Facebook ads in specific verticals was absolutely horrible. For example, banks and fintechs are willing to pay a ton for customer acquisition because these services are so sticky - get a new banking customer, and often you'll have them for life (changing banks can be a major PITA). But for all the people mindlessly scrolling through Facebook and Instagram, very few of them are wanting to go check out a new bank account opportunity while they're looking at funny cat videos.
Again, not sure if this has changed recently, but search ads and social media ads always just seemed to have very different purposes to me.
The products they make are sugar and if you wean yourself off you find they’re not actually important to you. There may be a strong hold, but switch focus and it’s easily broken.
There’s vulnerability there just waiting to be exploited.
Sure, those wearables may find niche use cases, but Zuckerberg definitely believed that the "Metaverse" (god I hate that term) would be the Next Big Computing Platform, as significant as the switch from desktops and laptops to smartphones. That has certainly not happened, and lots of people, myself included, still feel that all of these other devices are at best a "oh, that's cool" for a bit before ending up in a drawer somewhere, or at worst an undesired annoyance.
It should be a lesson in doing the opposite to /r/stocks sentiment. (They also had tons of posts on why shorting nvidia would be a great idea a year ago).
Basically do the opposite to the most uneducated group of investors you can find and you have a good chance at making money off their bad trades. Don’t try to inverse the large firms with huge amount of research. Just inverse reddit for easy money.