Skip to main content

Google TV Ads Update #8 - I was on TV!

So I logged in this morning to see if the ads had finally been approved, and it turns out I had ads run yesterday!

Here is the screen shoot of what I had run yesterday. Looks like almost 310k impressions in 72 spots. My average CPM was $0.46, which is actually less than the minimum bid of $0.50. Here is the Google definition of an impression:

Impressions within a Google TV Ads context are counted as the number of set top boxes tuned into a specific network when your ad is aired. The set top box must be engaged with your ad for at least five seconds to count as an impression. Your account is charged for live impressions and DVR (digital video recorder) +1 impressions. Final impression numbers -- the basis of billing -- are determined four days after your ad airs


The one issue I have right now is, looks like 0 people came to my website as a result of the ad. Overall lessons learned:
1) Don't be too afraid to have a max bid on the top end of the estimates. You will most likely be under it.
2) Just like you need to optimize your online adwords with targets, your ad creative, and more...you need to do the same with your TV ads.

Here is the basic campaign screen and the Played Spots report that you get in the reporting tab.



Comments

Manx203 said…
0 clicks? yeah that's a problem with TV advertising for anything like a web product.
It is hard to quantify your actual return from the ad.
Unlike a web besed ad, or Tweet there you know exactly where your clicks and visitors are coming from and where they're going - with a TV ad, there is such a disconnect between between the two mediums.

Its nice that Google does show your analytics along side your TV ad running though - at least that give you something to go on.
July 9, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Greg Melia, CAE said…
Cool Matt. I may have missed it before, but is there somewhere we can view your ad?
July 9, 2010 at 3:13 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

10 Thoughts on #ASAE10

Ok, so I could have spelled out the title, but chose the hashtag - #asae10. Supposedly there were over 8,000 tweets with the hashtag, but probably countless more direct messages of messages that left out the hashtag but were conference related. Two years ago, we were using twitter as a backchannel to talk about speakers. Now, over 800 people sent conference related tweets. If you aren't on Twitter, you are already late to the party. Anyway, on with the post... In no particular order, my thoughts on this years ASAE Annual Conference: 1. LA was a good venue. Lots to do. Hotels close by. Only downside was the rooms were a bit of a hike. 2. I missed Sunday because of family obligations. That really put me behind the 8 ball. Since I led a session, that meant I only got to go to 3 true sessions. Sorry, I don't count Joy Behar and the closing session. Although Marshall Goldsmith was good, I probably wouldn't have gone to see that speech as a Learning Lab. 3. Based on #...
11 comments
Read more

The Whole Cook Source Flap

I am going to give my 2 cents on this whole Cook Source thing. If you don't know what I am talking about, you can read more here and here . I am sure a few folks are going to take umbrage with my stance, but that is bound to happen. So a magazine found a blog post, liked it, printed it while giving credit to the author. The author hears about it, and gets pissed? She wants printed apologies and a donation made, because she got published? What am I missing here? Who wouldn't want their stuff to be published while being credited? Isn't that one of the main tenants of blogging, to be linked to? Sure, the response from the editor was one of the dumbest things ever written and she handled it tremendously bad. However, I am just floored that this person is pissed off. True, the internet is not public domain. However, every college paper in the world has citations. And all those students didn't contact the author to make sure they can use it. And every blog post ...
8 comments
Read more

Generational Issues

The latest Acronym post about Generational Issues got me thinking. I thought about writing a comment, but figured this deserved its own post. I am going to take the contrarian route, maybe spark some discussion. Feel free to tell me I am wrong, or maybe agree with me (as everyone should). Aren't we making too big a deal about the generational differences? Don't things evolve with the times? As staff turns over and new ideas are introduced, don't they inherently reflect the attitudes and ideas of their particular group? I know that you want to be proactive and you have to have a plan for the future to make sure you are still viable, but will you really need to change your entire business model? I know that there will be some extreme cases where that will be true as certain products become obsolete, but in most cases it won't. It is nice to generalize and stereotypes exist for a reason. But not every group is going to change how they do business just because Gen X differ...
6 comments
Read more