MangoCoffee
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2022
- Messages
- 48
New native campaigns without any lists can burn through an incredible amount of "learning money"!
As I understand, testing a widget can go up to 2 or 3x payout.
Of course, 0.8 x Payout is gold.
But... I'm wondering if a blanket set of Rules that hunt for the best widgets would be more efficient.
For example:
1. Block widget at .2 x payout
When this has exhausted the supply of widgets to some degree, or we start to pick up conversions, or something else.
Then we start unblocking widgets from rule 1 and start the next level of widget blocking:
2. Block widget at .4 x payout
Repeat up to .8 x payout where (in theory and all other factors being equal) we have a profitable campaign.
My Thinking Is:
* We find the super nice "gem" widgets quickly with less cost.
* We cover more widgets and websites in a shorter time frame and smaller budget giving our overall dataset more diversity
* B/W Lists are compiled quicker
This is not to exclude the other rules that we may have in place, but more like temporary widget blocking.
What do you
As I understand, testing a widget can go up to 2 or 3x payout.
Of course, 0.8 x Payout is gold.
But... I'm wondering if a blanket set of Rules that hunt for the best widgets would be more efficient.
For example:
1. Block widget at .2 x payout
When this has exhausted the supply of widgets to some degree, or we start to pick up conversions, or something else.
Then we start unblocking widgets from rule 1 and start the next level of widget blocking:
2. Block widget at .4 x payout
Repeat up to .8 x payout where (in theory and all other factors being equal) we have a profitable campaign.
My Thinking Is:
* We find the super nice "gem" widgets quickly with less cost.
* We cover more widgets and websites in a shorter time frame and smaller budget giving our overall dataset more diversity
* B/W Lists are compiled quicker
This is not to exclude the other rules that we may have in place, but more like temporary widget blocking.
What do you