Weapon 4: Self-curated managed placements – quality over quantity
Given the years of placement history at our agency’s disposal, we had Display campaign results from about 170,000 websites. #humblebrag
We grouped and reviewed these sites by clickthrough rate (CTR) and conversion rate, and cross-referenced by their Domain Authority scores.
We then eliminated sites based on:
- Unrealistic CTRs or conversion rates
- For context: If your brand awareness campaign placements secure CTRs over 1%, you might want to double-check placements
- Low domain authority scores
- Domains that generally are not aligned with our customer’s base
This purge made it possible to perform a manual curation on the remaining list. The final list count: 2,500 high-quality placements, enough to serve a campaign spending thousands of dollars a month (considerable, in the context of an online brand awareness play).
In A/B testing against a campaign run with Google automation, we saw some interesting comparisons:
- CTR was 230% higher with Google automation, but many sites secured unrealistic CTRs for a brand awareness campaign. Site quality was very poor, if not downright fraudulent.
- Conversion rates were 120% higher with Google automation, but again the vast majority of conversions came from suspicious sites and activity.
- Our managed placement list resulted in no fraud, genuine CTRs and conversions, and secured a lower CPC and view per user.
Based solely at the vanity quantitative results, any marketer would understandably let the platform handle the placements.
But when you consider qualitative results, any good marketer would opt for managed placements. Because they’d recognize that while you may have a reduced pool of placements to leverage, but you’ll reach more real customers. Isn’t that what marketing is about?