Originally Published 2007-04-10 17:54:18
PPA (Pay per Action)/CPA (Cost Per Acquisition) has been touted as the Next Big Thing in online advertising. My initial testing begs to differ, however.
I've been running an ad on the Turn.com Pay-per-action (PPA, or "cost/charge per acquisition", CPA) network for almost a month, now, and I've had some pretty disheartening results.
(See my initial analysis of Turn for some background info.)
Here's a screenshot from earlier today (click through for a full-size version):
As you can see, I have nothing to show for almost 100K impressions. Well, almost nothing. 59 people now happen to know about this particular product, but since it's the action that earns money for everyone (turn, my client, and me), this doesn't feel all that exciting to me. In other words, it's a bust.
I did rotate out the ads last week and try some different verbiage, so I'm pretty sure a nice ad rewrite won't suddenly increase the click-through rate signfiicantly.
Unfortunately, the closed nature of the Turn network (I have no idea where these ads are being published, so I can't even guess as to why the results are so bad. These impressions could all be at the bottom of pages with completely unrelated content, for all I know.)
Of course, since the campaign is essentially free (I had to pay a one-time fee of five bucks to sign up on Turn as an advertiser), I'll just let it run... forever. But the verdict is still out on the efficacy of Pay-Per-Action advertising.
On 2007-04-10 19:36:01 Turn.com experiment/review/test week 3 said:
[...] Turn.com experiment/review/test week 3 [...]