> Duh, just solve the fundamental problem that has plagued advertising since the birth of the industry!
That's kind of why Facebook/Google was ever supposed to be valuable: they empower the analysis. How do you do good analysis with bad inputs?
That's kind of why Facebook/Google was ever supposed to be valuable: they empower the analysis. How do you do good analysis with bad inputs?
But assuming the FB/Google reported numbers are accurate, would you pay for them and just convince yourself they are actually increasing your sales?
You should be able to at least plot sales numbers against ad spending per week over a year.
In the 1300s, feedback to the advertiser took years.
In the 1900s, months.
In the 1960s, you could now measure the effect of blanketing a MMR with ads, and see how sales there compared to nationally.
This century, you have still-imperfect, yet much better than before, attribution.
Good analysis in the 1930s was different than now. Good marketing was the same, but with cruder tools.
Having wiggle room on numbers isn't a bad thing. Lying about the amount of wiggle room on said numbers is.