The ads generally ran from 16-06 to 23-06 give or take a day.
Here are their results analysis after two and a half weeks – 05-07-23.
Was the heading of Youtility the cause for less CTR*?
If the results show that the ratio here is higher than at Youtility, it would be likely that the heading was indeed the cause, since I will now have two content pieces with largely the same metadata (Heading, thumbnail, subheading) and both outperform Youtility.
Main Metric Results
The main metric is E-mail subscribers, and to measure that I view the analytics of the email software I use – ConvertKit, as in the screenshot above.
Goal(Set at previous analysis): At least 1 subscriber and 4 form views.
Result: 326+ form views and 1 subscriber (Overkill?)
It seems that the new search ad that was launched successfully this time is the cause of that result.
So what indeed caused the difference? Before we could answer that we´ll need the raw ad numbers.
Raw ad numbers
YouTube Ad (Video)
| Youtility | Content Inc | Content RULES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget | 10$ ~ | 20$ ~ | 10$ ~ |
| Impressions | 52,640 | 114,458 | 50,480 |
| Views | 1,026 | 2,477 | 995 |
| Likes | 13 | 39 | 18 |
| CTR | 1.94% | 2.16% | 1.97% |
| View-to-like ratio | 1.26% | 1.57% | 1.8% |
| Average View Duration (During ad activity period) | 0:30 (06-13 May) | 0:30 (14-29 Apr) | 0:32 (16-23 Jun) |
Facebook (Video)
| Content INC | Youtility | Content Rules | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Budget | 8.75$ | 8.75$ | 8.75$ |
| Reach | 2,640 | 450 | 2,052 |
| Clicks To Reproduce | 11 | 98 | 42 |
| Reactions | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CTR | 0.41% | 21.77% | 2.04% |
| View-to-Reaction Ratio | 0% | 0% | 0% |
PPC (Blog Post)
In contrast to the previous two, this one actually worked.
And I’ve accidentally launched two.
Here are their results.
| Content Rules | Content Rules 1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Budget | ~10$ | ~10$ |
| Impressions | 2,394 | 1,381 |
| Clicks | 239 | 148 |
| CTR | 9.98% | 10.72% |
Why Did it Work This Time?
The main difference I observed is that the general campaign objective was; None, and became: Leads.
This was thanks to Generally following the outlines in this YouTube guide, with my customizations on top.
Why Such Different Results Between Them?
It seems that one has “contentmarketing tips” as a keyword (lower search volume) and the other
“content marketing tips” (higher search volume).
Differences and Conclusions
The Biggest Influence on The Main Metric
IT is very, very likely, the ad that was responsible for the 1 subscriber is the new PPC. (There’s still a small likelihood that it has been someone who viewed the blog after seeing a video ad, but the chances are slim to none, in comparison with the huge amount of traffic to that form from the PPC ad.
This means that I shall definitely continue with PPC of this sort. But that seems to be a result just of the ad.
The content probably had nothing to do with it.
So how can we test the difference in content? Viz:
Why The Video Got No Leads
The audience didn´t click the final “3 Content Rules worksheet” form at all.
Possible cause: Worksheet has no appeal.
Action to take: Try another worksheet CTA in the next video and see the effect.
If that doesn’t work, the reason might be that the video wasn’t watched long enough. In which case, consider trying a different audience, and perhaps adjust the heading according to that audience.
Testing the Content Itself
The only ad that may help understand the quality of the content is the YouTube one, because it was the only one that wasn´t changed, which allows to see the differences in the results as they are related to the content itself.
It seems that no matter the content, the ad results are closely the same. Which leads me to believe that the settings of the ad itself have a bigger effect on the metrics. (The viewing of the content rises because of properly set expectations)
I should therefore try to tweak the ad itself in the next iteration, perhaps try more narrow audiences in contrast to the 50-some congregations I aim at right now.
Content Heading Effect Depends not On Ad
The assumption I was aiming to test in the beginning of this piece is pretty silly, since when I think of it, the ad has a separate headline anyway, so the only way to test the appeal of the content headline is through the organic results after the ad was over.
Analyzing Organic Results
Testing The Headline
So I have checked that out and found that in the period of 11 days after each one of the ads ended, the CTRs were:
CI – 3.9%
CR – 2.9%
YTLT – 2.1%
Which indeed shows that it is likely that YTLT’s headline is less engagement inducing than CR’s and CI’s.
3 Useful Content Ideas vs 3 Main Ideas and 3 Exercises the first one is the winner.
Which leads me to assume that possibly two numbers in the heading may be too much. It needs to convey 1 idea.
Testing The Engagement of The Opening
The beginning of Youtility, it seems, was also not very captivating, as I was suspecting in the previous analysis.
That is because in the same 11 days “after ads” period the average duration of viewing was
YTLT – 0:43 (7.6%)
CR – 1:04 (12.0%)
CI – 1:22 (11.9%)
The lowest was Youtility.
I shall take it as an example of what not to do in the opening.
How to improve?
But I already assumed that the Youtility introduction is not very engaging in the previous analysis, and so, without even waiting for proof from this analysis in the form of comparing results with the previous one, I already made an effort to improve the opening in CR (Bottom Left).
However, if I were to do Youtility all over again
Instead of the part in the opening that ends with “How does this make any financial sense?” I could have just said,
How could you stay profitable(Already captures attention) if you keep making free videos for which you could be paid?
Now that sounds captivating.
Actions to Take
1. Continue the current format of PPC ads.
2. Try another worksheet CTA in the next video
3. Test narrower audiences (10 instead of 50 congregations)
4. Focus on 1 Main Idea in the next heading, not two
5. Re-Focus on opening lines of the script to make them more interesting. Like in CR.