The Facebook Purchase Pixel Theory

This video shows my theory of the Facebook Ads purchase pixel.  I think it’s a bit different versus the popular opinion out there.  Most feel that you have to “season” a pixel to get it work right.  I don’t think so.  I think it’s already seasoned.  I think it’s just a matter of throwing enough money at it to get their attention.  This video explains my theory and you can put it to use in your own campaigns.  Please let me know what you think in the comments.  Enjoy!  (Remember this is just my theory, doesn’t mean it’s right).  🙂

  • Gary Ng

    $5 ads are dead!

    • Will

      They’re not dead, they’re just really slow to use. They do work, but not as effectively as the bigger budget ads.

  • Zoltan Simon

    Your theory could be true for cpm ads, not cpc campaigns, because in case of cpc campaigns, Facebook should put an ad on a user’s timeline that best fit his activity, FB needs the user to click on that.

    • Will

      Yes and no. They SHOULD operate like that but I’ve used plenty of website conversion ad objectives with the link clicks to website as the method using the purchase as the behavior to optimize for. It doesn’t seem to make much difference. The basic jist seems to hold true. I believe they rank all of us advertisers and the higher you are on the ranking list the better the traffic you get. I believe the PRIME ranking factor is how much you spend each day with them. 🙂

  • Mark Salinger

    Hold on. How would you be doing 25 purchases PER DAY if the ad is not yet conversion optimized? Is the conventional wisdom that you must first waste a freaking TON of money to get those 25 purchases per day before you can start to optimize it? That’s nonsensical! If you’re already making that many sales per day it doesn’t sound like you need ANY additional help getting sales.

    You’re talking about spending at least $250 per day if your ad is for PPE or Clicks unless of course you’re doing much less than that in which case why bother switching to WC ads at all? I’ve never understood the logic of that.

    • Will

      That’s my point, “conversion optimized” is something I don’t think exists.

      • Mark Salinger

        But then what’s the point of using the website conversion objective at all?

        • Will

          What I mean is, the behavior is already there, they know full well who will buy and who won’t in whatever niche you’re in. So yes they will optimize it for conversions, but you have to pay to get the really really good traffic. You can still run it at low budgets but my theory that i’ve been testing is, you’ll have good days, (where they give you good traffic) and bad days, (where they just give the good traffic to a bigger budget advertiser).

  • Skipper Martin

    It would have been nice if we could have heard it.

    • Will

      Was the audio not working for you?

      • Skipper Martin

        Could barely hear it and it’s not on my end because other videos are playing fine. The level was way too low on the recording.

        • Will

          Hi Skip, I’ll see if I can adjust the volume on the video.

  • christopherdittemore

    Interesting theory, but I’ve found the more I give toward budget the more traffic costs and the more my cost per conversion is, not less which should be the case if I’m getting more efficient traffic.

    • Will

      Are you playing with the budget on existing ad sets at all? I’ve found that typically kills the performance right away.

      • christopherdittemore

        I did too, so I started duplicating $5 ad sets, I suppose FB might look at campaign overall budget though. I prefer scaling out than scaling up.

        • Will

          Only problem with running too many duplicates at low budgets at the same time is audience overlap might be a concern now. Who knows for sure though as they are constantly moving the goal posts on us. 🙂