While I'm sure the methods in here are valuable, the initial claim of 83% seems suspect.
> After launching the Adaptive Audience campaign, CPA for our technical audience went from $34.47 for general remarketing to $18.80 for the targeted remarketing via adaptive audiences, so an 83% overall improvement for CPA for our technical audience – which is a huge win!
This seems like a misleading way to phrase this. When I hear 83% improvement from $34.47, I expect a 83% ($28.61) drop, ie, 34.47 * (1 - 0.83) = 5.86.
This is more reasonably a (34.47 - 18.80) / 34.47 = 45% drop. Still impressive, but not the same.
Is it really standard to express your improvement in these terms? This would make it trivial to have a >100% drop in cost, which is clearly wrong.
> After launching the Adaptive Audience campaign, CPA for our technical audience went from $34.47 for general remarketing to $18.80 for the targeted remarketing via adaptive audiences, so an 83% overall improvement for CPA for our technical audience – which is a huge win!
This seems like a misleading way to phrase this. When I hear 83% improvement from $34.47, I expect a 83% ($28.61) drop, ie, 34.47 * (1 - 0.83) = 5.86.
This is more reasonably a (34.47 - 18.80) / 34.47 = 45% drop. Still impressive, but not the same.
Is it really standard to express your improvement in these terms? This would make it trivial to have a >100% drop in cost, which is clearly wrong.