More conversions and higher ROAS are not always indicative of increased pipeline or revenue. I’ve discovered how to measure incremental value more accurately, and I’m excited to share it with you.
As a B2B PPC advertiser, I now have more options than ever before to gauge success. Previously, all I had was form-fill data. Now, with offline conversion data, I can feed invaluable insights into Google Ads and Microsoft Ads.
I’ve realized that while it’s tempting to measure every possible metric, optimizing them all is impractical. If you chase everything, you might end up achieving nothing substantial.
Determining if I’ve driven true incremental value and identifying the right success metrics for B2B PPC campaigns was crucial. Often, the metrics that truly matter aren’t the ones I initially focused on.
I’ve witnessed advertisers integrate offline conversions and get thrilled with a spike in total conversions, only to be hit with disappointment when there’s no boost in the bottom line.
After incorporating numerous conversion actions and setting them all to primary, advertisers, including myself, saw conversion counts rise, but not their actual impact. We were essentially counting the same leads multiple times.
This led to inflated platform-reported ROAS. Attaching conversion values to each action, which is advisable, also resulted in false increases. Both scenarios result from faulty calculations.
Solely focusing on average CPA proved misleading. It can mask the marginal CPA, the cost of acquiring an additional conversion as marketing expenditure increases, potentially leading to overspending as the account scales.
Setting up conversion values is crucial for understanding offline conversions. But it’s easy to get stuck if the conversion value isn’t known until it processes further down the pipeline.
Even if using actual conversion values is impossible, assigning relative values is still beneficial. I learned this through a simplistic example scenario.
Here, whenever I employed arbitrary values, I made sure to validate them against real data to ensure bidding algorithms responded accurately. This adjustment improved the relative perceived value of MQLs and SQLs for better alignment with true business goals.
By doing this, within just a couple of weeks, we managed to significantly boost MQL and SQL volumes while keeping leads flat, ultimately delivering higher-quality leads at the same cost.
Experimenting with campaign-specific goals allowed Smart Bidding to focus strictly on down-funnel actions, which fine-tuned our optimization efforts.
However, if lower funnel actions yielded low volumes, I noted automation might struggle due to insufficient signals. Adjusting strategy with this understanding ensured clearer outcomes.
To measure success effectively, beyond traditional CPA and ROAS, I focused on incremental conversions, evaluating them against baselines to understand the financial sensibility of further investments.
The most reliable measure of incremental value was mapping CRM data back to actual paid search campaigns. This helped in identifying assets and campaigns that, while generating fewer leads, drove significant pipeline growth.
Understanding this dynamic was critical in recognizing diminishing returns and preventing unfounded overspending on non-cost-effective channels.
Inspired by this post on Search Engine Land.
Leave a Reply