Got a question? Call us at +1-800-771-9415

Archive for the ‘Facebook Ad Tips’ Category

Ads in the Wild: Using and Testing The Images You Already Have

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

 

[originally posted on PPCHero]

 

I spotted this ad on my Facebook page and a few thoughts flashed through my mind:

 

Hard to look at Facebook Photo

 

1)  Boy is that photo a jumbled, hard-to-look-at mess!

2)  “Secret Photo Skills”? Color me suspicious…

3)  I wonder if there aren’t more examples on the landing page?

 

Well, it turned out there were a lot of really cool examples of this guys trick photography on the landing page.  If you want to see the page “in the raw,” just click here. But if you want to see how using some of them would easily create some compellingly optimized ads for split testing, you can check out these mock-ups I made: (more…)

 



Ads in the Wild: Tribal Is As Tribal Does

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

 

[originally posted on PPCHero]

 

What good does it do to hyper-target your market if you don’t tailor your messages and offers to reflect the targeting?

 

If you’re going to send all your segmented target audiences the same or almost the same messages and offers anyway, why bother targeting?

 

And this goes beyond just changing the obvious aspects of the message and offer, such as making sure you use a picture of a guy (instead of a girl) when advertising a dating site to women, though that’s obviously important too.

 

Think also in terms of self-image, markers of in-group identities, psychology, and so on.  In a word, think Tribal. (more…)

 



Ads in the Wild: Do Your Ads Suffer From the Curse of Knowledge?

Tuesday, March 13th, 2012

 

[originally posted on www.PPCHero.com]

The theory of The Curse of Knowledge states that once you learn something, it becomes all-but-impossible to realize what it was like not to know that thing.

 

You start to assume everybody knows what you know. Maybe not consciously and directly, but your communication will often, unknowingly presume that your audience knows stuff that they don’t.

 

And if you don’t believe this is a common condition, check out the rampant success of all the “For Dummies” books.  1700 successful titles all aimed at people willing to call themselves “dummies” if a book will simply use “beginner friendly” language and terms.  In other words, if the book’s author will sidestep The Curse of Knowledge and not assume reader knowledge where it doesn’t exist.

 

So would it surprise you that more than a few Facebook ads suffer from this same curse?  Here’s a great example a friend sent me from his Facebook page:

  (more…)

 



Ads in the Wild: Addressing the “Yeah, Sure” Response

Tuesday, February 21st, 2012

 

[originally posted on PPCHERO]

 

So I couldn’t help but notice this ad on my Facebook page:

 

 

You gotta admit, the bold, fluorescent green font proclaiming FREE books would grab they eyeballs of most anyone, and capture the attention of every avid reader that sees it.  Unfortunately, that’s where the ad’s effectiveness ends.

Eye-Catching? Yes. Persuasive? Not At All

 

See, if I wasn’t in the business of writing about ads, I’d never have clicked through on this one. Why? Because the instant I understood the offer, I thought “Yeah, Sure.”

 

As in, “Yeah, sure they’re free, but they’re also probably 4th-rate dreck created by previously unpublished — and likely unpublishable — authors. Either prove it’s otherwise, or I’ll have to say, ‘No Thanks.‘”

 

So, thinking that, I looked at the copy hoping to find some proof that this wasn’t the case.

 

Unfortunately, there was none to be found.  Instead, what I got was advanced notice that Ereader News Today wasn’t about to give up ANY indication of what kind of books they’d link me to until AFTER I’d already “Liked” them. And the bragging about providing “The Latest” free Kindle books, rather than the BEST free kindle books, didn’t inspire any confidence either.

What the Ad Copy Should Have Done

 

The Image and Headline are there to grab eyeballs and gain enough interest to get the ad read. That’s their job: the Attention and some of the Interest part of the AIDA copywriting formula. And for this ad, they got the job done.

Anticipating and Answering The “Yeah, Sure” Response

 

 

As for the body copy, its job is to help deepen desire, mainly by addressing issues of credibility.  In other words, the copy often has to answer the “Yeah, Sure” response.  In this case, the copy SHOULD have reassured me that Ereader News Today provided links to 5-star books by previously published authors as well as the “latest” free kindle books.

 

And if that wasn’t possible, they should have at least made some attempt to reassure the reader that some attempt at curation and selection was being made on behalf of the reader — that we weren’t just getting spammed with newly released books of totally unknown and unproven quality.

 

Now THAT would have likely gotten my click.  But there’s one more thing to talk about…

Giving R-E-S-P-E-C-T to the “Like”

 

 

Marketers have a fatally bad habit of viewing non-cash transactions as either free or no-cost.  If they’re asking for an e-mail address before allowing you to download a white paper, they think they’re giving away free content, as if it cost the prospect nothing to give up their e-mail address.

 

Frankly, that’s just plain stupid.

 

There IS indeed a cost to providing an e-mail address. I’m giving you permission to contact me in the future, and agreeing to allow one more thing to clutter my inbox, definitely with a few e-mails now, and likely with a steady stream of newsletter and/or promotional “drips” in the future.  That’s not free.

 

But at least giving up an e-mail address is private, which is more than can be said for “Likes.”

 

Get it?  Asking me for a “Like” on Facebook, so that I can see “Free” content, is actually asking me to make a public pronouncement and implied endorsement of you and your product before I’ve even had the slightest chance to gauge whether you’re worthy of such a public “liking.”

 

Now, if I already have an emotional connection or loyalty or element of self-identification tied in with your brand (as in when, say, a favorite Rock Band or alma mater asks for a “like”), then fine.  But for an unknown entity like Ereader News Today to ask for that on first meeting?  It’s a bit like asking for marriage on the first date.

So what are the Final Take-Aways?

 

Three things, actually:

  1. Answer Prospects’ “Yeah, Sure” responses
  2. Never think of a “Like” as free or easy
  3. If you’re new to the prospect, test giving them something to evaluate you by BEFORE demanding the “Like”

 



Ads in the Wild: Intentionally Excluding Half Your Audience?

Tuesday, February 14th, 2012

 

[originally posted on PPCHERO]

 

Imagine you’re creating a Facebook ad targeted to professional photographers. And you don’t have ready access to the data which would allow you to target by Nikon or Canon preference.  Would you still be willing to design ads that call out Canon or Nikon fans by name?

 

This question came to my mind after seeing this ad on my wife’s Facebook page:

 

 

Also, here’s a little context for you non-photographers out there.  Nikon and Canon pretty evenly divide the market share for working photographers in the U.S., with most photographers dedicated to one platform or the other.

 

Think Apple vs. PC, with all the same “sidedness” and self-identification that sometimes goes along with that, but with a much more even division of marketshare.

 

So if you sent out that ad with the Nikon image and call to action, you’d have to do it knowing that you’d be intentionally excluding half your audience (assuming that you rent lenses for both Canon and Nikon, which this company does).

 

That’s why most Facebook advertisers wouldn’t pull a stunt like this: it’s counterintuitive. But that same dynamic is exactly why they should consider it!

 

If you create both versions of the ad — a Nikon and Canon version — and run them alternately to different segments of your list, you could leverage the identification and emotion felt towards these two brands to get a much higher reaction rate for your ad and service.

 

Because excluding half your audience with each ad is worth it if both ads boosted response rate, right? If the generic, non-branded ad gets a CTR of 2% and the Nikon-specific ad got 4%, who cares about those Canon photographers who didn’t respond to that ad — we’ll get ‘em next week when we run the Canon version of the ad!

 

It’s an interesting thought experiment because targeting through messaging can often make up for whatever targeting limitations are inherent to your platform. People who advertise on mass media know this, but Facebook advertisers sometimes get so spoiled by the platform’s micro-targeting capabilities that they forget to target by message.

 

Consider this a reminder : )