What's the lowest ROI you'll accept to keep a campaign alive?

E

erdini

New member
Jul 26, 2011
90
1
0
Obviously we are talking about positive ROI here.

And this would be for an established campaign running on auto-pilot, that you aren't doing anything with.

What's the least ROI would you need to keep it running? 25%? 50%? 100%? 200%?
 


I would say around 50%
Then I would look for ways to try and increase that. But it usually is hard to increase the ROI when its that low, due to the advertiser scrubbing/shaving so I just bail on the campaign until I find a similar offer
 
Depends on the volume of the campaign and how much its earning. If its like spend 2k to make 50 bucks I wouldn't. But spend 10k to make 1k I would do.
 
momchil9 said:
cashflow.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant given situation explained in OP. He said it's on auto-pilot, you do nothing, and earned a fix ROI.

If I could get more of a return on the money than I get from borrowing it, with zero risk, and no work, why wouldn't I do it? Given there's zero risk, no work and a fixed ROI, a bank'll hand you the money.

It's a poorly constructed discussion. Tons of things impact it.

If you have $100bn, a 5-10% annual average return on that is awesome.

If you've got $500, a 5-10% annual return on that is pitifully bad.

As you scale things up, you generally speaking reduce ROI, due to supply/demand curves and all sorts of other shit. ROI in itself is therefore a useless metric, other than when comparing two scenarios.

E.g. I anticipate ROI on running this campaign to be ~20% for my $10k, if I put it in the bank I get 5%. Therefore I invest in the campaign.

There's no lower/upper limit on ROI itself for taking a deal, it's all down to perspective and the vehicles available to you to make money given the cash you have available to invest.
 
mituozo said:
Irrelevant given situation explained in OP. He said it's on auto-pilot, you do nothing, and earned a fix ROI.

If I could get more of a return on the money than I get from borrowing it, with zero risk, and no work, why wouldn't I do it? Given there's zero risk, no work and a fixed ROI, a bank'll hand you the money.

It's a poorly constructed discussion. Tons of things impact it.

If you have $100bn, a 5-10% annual average return on that is awesome.

If you've got $500, a 5-10% annual return on that is pitifully bad.

As you scale things up, you generally speaking reduce ROI, due to supply/demand curves and all sorts of other shit. ROI in itself is therefore a useless metric, other than when comparing two scenarios.

E.g. I anticipate ROI on running this campaign to be ~20% for my $10k, if I put it in the bank I get 5%. Therefore I invest in the campaign.

There's no lower/upper limit on ROI itself for taking a deal, it's all down to perspective and the vehicles available to you to make money given the cash you have available to invest.
Click to expand...

See, this is why Mituozo is the CFO of the new mega conglomerate in the affiliate world, CCarters-I-Aint-Paying-You-Shit-CPA-World.info!
 
About 10%

1. If it's much lower, the normal fluctuations would sometimes make the campaign lose money. If something went down or stopped working, I would lose a lot of money. If something small changed, it could easily swing into the red and stay there.

2. The risk of the network not paying is not worth it at a lower roi.
 
CCarter said:
See, this is why Mituozo is the CFO of the new mega conglomerate in the affiliate world, CCarters-I-Aint-Paying-You-Shit-CPA-World.info!
Click to expand...

I was going to really show off and tell them all about how I can calculate net present values and discounted cash flows, but I'll save that for our management accounts.

We gon' be billionaires!
 
I usually only promote brands that I myself own, so I could make a 100% return on something and be happy to continue running it knowing that word of mouth advertising and customer evangelism would be generating me additional profit that is usually very difficult to measure up against a PPC campaign.
 
r3p1v said:
About 10%

1. If it's much lower, the normal fluctuations would sometimes make the campaign lose money. If something went down or stopped working, I would lose a lot of money. If something small changed, it could easily swing into the red and stay there.

2. The risk of the network not paying is not worth it at a lower roi.
Click to expand...
This
BigWill said:
Depends on the volume of the campaign and how much its earning. If its like spend 2k to make 50 bucks I wouldn't. But spend 10k to make 1k I would do.
Click to expand...
and that.

You guys talking about fixed ROI on autopilot probably haven't ran a campaign that big before, otherwise you'd know the fluctuations would make the low ROI campaigns a pain to maintain.
 
mituozo said:
If you have $100bn, a 5-10% annual average return on that is awesome.

If you've got $500, a 5-10% annual return on that is pitifully bad.
Click to expand...

That is very true and the question is very poorly given, so I didn't bother answering it in the first place, because it seems that it is speculative/a dreamer, thinking about things he has no clue about.

HOWEVER, I don't like buying tons of traffic on credit, due to numerous reasons. And also, if you are not a US citizen, you will have a tough time getting credit from networks(in the USA), unless you incorporate there, and build paperwork.

Not to mention there is no such thing as "hands-free" campaigns. If you are spending a ton, you MUST watch it and analyze on regular basis, because very small changes can make you crash, and that is leaving burning out placements/creatives/offers aside. And if you crash while on credit... well good luck bro. And if you are not spending much, wtf are we talking about and why.

All is good with what you are saying, but it is WAY easier said than done.
 
If you can do big volume, I'd run it at 0% margin. Leverage it for higher payouts on other, potentially more lucrative offers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom