Reminder: There's never really been any evidence that the Trump campaign's digital ad targeting on Facebook was either an important factor in the campaign or was terribly effective.
-
What would that evidence look like?
Website traffic from the ads, the number of impressions, the actions taken from the impressions (can be done with geofencing, utm links, dozen more ways). Example: it’s suspected that Russian hackers had 100m impressions. Compare to brands, that’s nothing
-
-
You can't track impressions via "utm links, geofencing or a dozen other ways". Impressions are a count of how many times an ad is served to users. There's no way to know what a person does after they log-off and go about their day. There's no way to know if they even saw the ad.
-
You can get 100m impression for maybe less than 100k depending on audience. I’ve spent $5m plus on Facebook ads and have gotten maybe 300-400m impressions and am considered tiny (barely even have an account manager at FB and am in the small business category).
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed, but I think we still don't understand "issue advertising" in a social context. The end goal isn't to get people to click through as much as it is to influence the perception of support for a topic. Ads are a small part of a larger astroturfing strategy
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
People who actually get how Facebook advertising works know that the ads and “hack” were a total joke. And I say that as someone who far from a Trump apologist.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It isn't nothing if you consider how targeted the impressions were
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.