Archive for December, 2010
I’ve mentioned a problem earlier; Expansion Module Architecture Design Experiences of ENDA Devices. It turned out that the API function provided by the MCU vendor SysCtlPeripheralReset() fixes the issue. The slight problem was that, this function blocks for a moment and causes a performance penalty if you use it in a hot spot (such as in my example, which is called my a hardware timer with a high frequency). So I ended issuing the peripheral reset, do business logic, start the peripheral again. It is working like a charm now.
// Issue reset
HWREG(SYSCTL_SRCR1) |= SYSCTL_PERIPH_MASK(SYSCTL_PERIPH_SSI0);
// Do business logic
// Release reset
HWREG(SYSCTL_SRCR1) &= ~SYSCTL_PERIPH_MASK(SYSCTL_PERIPH_SSI0)
I was planning to write on this topic for a long time. Long story short:
|Ad network||CTR (Click through rate)||Cost per click (cent)||Conversion rate||Throughput (registration/day)||Cost per sign-up (USD)|
|A Turkish ad agency||0.24||13||10||500*||1.3|
Cost per signup (CPS)
Obviously, this is one of the most, if not the only, important things to consider. This is the actual cost you are paying for each potential customer.
- paying customer ratio (P) is 0.02
- average transaction (T) is $16
- cost per signup (C) is $0.15
For 100 signups, you’ll earn $32 and your cost would be $15. So PT/C is your profitability.
CTR heavily depends on the platform.
Facebook: CTR of this platform is the lowest. This is not your concern obviously, since you don’t pay for it anyway. That is Facebook’s job to improve it, for their own sake. I believe the reason is that the ads are really really far away from the real content and not intrusive. I believe this improves the Facebook users’ experience.
Though, it is a bit surprising. Facebook ads are highly targeted, you select who you want to show your ad to. So they should be interested in your ad, right ? Well, looks like that’s not the case.
Google is a big surprise is here, the CTR there is a whooping 1.68. Google also offers targeted ads, like Facebook. But there’s a difference. Google shows the relevant ads only when the user is searching for exactly that content whereas Facebook shows the ads to the relevant audience, but just not when they are actively looking for that particular service. Of course, this is just my observation, not a scientific conclusion in anyway but I believe this is the key difference.
Local ad agency’s ads are insanely intrusive, unbelievable. They are also loosely targeted, only relevant sites display the ad. Though, their CTR is not very high either, 0.24. They say this is above the industry standard for their market.
This is an interesting factor to consider. Even though, a “maths only” view suggest that sole CPS value is the most important one, I’m sure people with knowledge about economy could name 10 theories about the importance of this factor too. A high, but costly, throughput can give you early market penetration and that can change everything, or not, I don’t know :)
Imagine an always increasing revenue graph, like a triangle. Your revenue is X at T1, and 2X at T2. Now if you shift that triangle to left (earlier market penetration), your revenues increase substantially at each T point.
Among the three ad platforms mentioned above, Facebook provided a very stable throughput each day, almost the same everyday. After I applied my filters of the target audience, it was something like 340k people of 600M Facebook population. So if we add multilingual support to our service, our target audience will go up to 3.5M. Which I expect to bring a 10-time fold to the Facebook throughput.
Google’s performance was not stable, I believe it is a living social entity.
Local ad network drove high traffic during social events and when their ad pool is smaller (meaning that we get more share of the page views — impressions).
Above mentioned costs might apply only for the target audience we were interested in. So it might be a bit misleading. If competition is harder for the target audience, the costs might go up.