šAre You Overpaying Your Ad Network by 30-40%? Decoding SKAN vs. probabilistic billingš§
Sep 15, 2023
auto_awesome
The podcast discusses the pitfall of using probabilistic models for optimization but relying on SKAN data for billing in ad networks, potentially leading to overpayment. They explain the difference between SKAN CPA and probabilistic CPA in ad networks and highlight the limitations and challenges of using scan attribution for billing. The hosts recommend a conservative approach for accurate spend verification.
08:44
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Working with ad networks that use probabilistic modeling for attribution and reporting while relying on SKAN data for billing can result in a 30-40% increase in actual spend compared to reported spend.
To address the discrepancy in ad network metrics, advertisers can either take an aggressive approach by considering billable spend as the source of truth and adding a multiplier for missed conversions, or a conservative approach by relying on scan conversions as the source of truth and disregarding probabilistic conversions, ensuring easier comparison across channels and more credible metrics.
Deep dives
The Pitfall of Using Probabilistic Modeling for Ad Network Attribution
One main idea discussed in the podcast is the potential pitfall of working with ad networks that use probabilistic modeling for attribution and reporting. The speaker highlights that while these networks may use probabilistic models for optimization and reporting, they rely on scan data for billing. This discrepancy can lead to a significant difference between the spend accounted for in daily and weekly reports and the actual bill from ad networks, with a potential increase of 30 to 40%. This gap can result in significant financial loss if not carefully monitored and accounted for, especially if there is a disconnect between the finance team and the media buying team. The example of the difference in reported spend between probabilistic and billable according to scan data is provided to illustrate the magnitude of the issue.
Approaches to Address the Discrepancy in Ad Network Metrics
Another key point discussed in the podcast is the two different approaches to address the discrepancy in ad network metrics. The speaker suggests either taking an aggressive approach or a conservative approach. The aggressive approach involves considering billable spend as the source of truth and adding a multiplier to account for the conversions that probabilistic models may miss, typically estimated at 30-40%. On the other hand, the conservative approach relies on scan conversions as the source of truth and disregards the probabilistic conversions, considering billable spend as the actuals. This approach allows for easier comparison across channels and ensures objectivity and reliability since it relies on scan data. The choice between the two approaches depends on the goals of the advertiser, with the conservative approach being recommended for easier comparison across channels and more credible metrics.
In this episode, we dive into a common pitfall weāve seen many developers fall into lately. While many ad networks use probabilistic models for optimization, they turn to SKAN data when it comes to billing. This discrepancy might mean youāre paying 30-40% more than anticipated or that your campaignās performance isnāt as stellar as you believed. In this episode, I unpack the underlying mechanics of what is happening ā and what we recommend doing instead.