Thanks for that. To my mind you are just worrying a little too soon. I think your stats are pretty good.

Even though some people convert early, you can't tally people that haven't finished the funnel (but those who unsubscribe do count). So with that said, (without taking your unsubscribes into consideration) your conversion rate is actually 6.6%. The high side of normal. But we are dealing with such a small data sample so far that this number will almost certainly change. 

If your 7 day average is just $1.17, then that's a great price. All you can do is look at that average. If you look at a smaller window, as you have, it will only just lead to panic, and possibly killing a successful campaign. 

Wild fluctuations are common. Especially with small budgets and $10/day is really the smallest budget you can work with when conversions is the objectives. So I just think you stopped too early. That doesn't mean that the campaign would have gone on to be a winner, but so far, it looked good to me. 

Basically, watch the 7 day average and ignore stats within smaller windows of time, calculate your sales conversion rate based on people who have already gone through the LTO and unsubscribed and ignore those still in the funnel. And be aware that your budget is so low that when you have a slow day, the algorithm can struggle because there isn't enough data coming in. Especially with a new campaign. But I would personally not be unhappy with those stats you just shared.

Sounds good. Fingers crossed for you.

Rachel Collis said
Hi again John,

I'm back with a question around segmenting a facebook audience....

Firstly, when I separate Australia out from a Joni Mitchell audience, ages 25-65+, there are only 35,000 people. I could try adding in NZ but I don't think that would increase the number much. In your experience is that too small an audience to advertise to? My only purpose in doing so would be to increase my chances of having a viable tour one-day (currently Australians make up only about 1-2% of my leads).

Hi Rachel, if conversions is your objective then yes, this would likely be too small. You want to be able to spend no more than $1 USD per 10,000 people and you want to try and spend at least $10 a day of the objective is conversions, so the math doesn't work out in your case. You would be better off using a lookalike in smaller markets like Aus and NZ, if the goal is to stay local and build your list for touring purposes.

Secondly, I'm trying to work out what the value is in segmenting. I mentioned previously that the Joni Mitchell audience was favouring the 65+ age group. Hypothetically, what would be the difference between spending $30/day on one audience 25-65+, versus $10 for, say, 25-45, $10 for 45-65, and $10 for 65+? Is there any benefit if both are converting at a similar price? (Other than perhaps preventing the facebook algorithm from getting into a rut by skewing towards one demographic?)

The benefit to splitting your ad sets up by age like that would be that it can help balanced an unbalanced demographic. For example, it is not uncommon to have an older audience perform best. However, most artists don't want to limit their following to only older people. But if lumped together the algorithm would continue to favour that older segment that performs best. By splitting them up you are getting older fans for as cheap a price as is possible, but still getting a shot with the younger audiences. You may also find that younger audiences respond to different ad copy and images, or that a younger audience for one interest group may perform better than an older audience of another interest group. By separating things out you would be optimizing separately and insuring the best possible chance with each age group. This is not always necessary, but it is something that can be done to mitigate teh concerns about building an exclusively older base.

A totally different question - my second follow up email blog post seems to be outperforming my first one. We looked at these together in a private consultation, the first is a "my story" type blog post and the second is more a topical discussion. Would it be strange to swap them around, so that I "warm" people up before telling my story? Or is it always better to lead with the story?

To jog your memory, here are the links -

Follow up 1: https://rachelcollis.com/2020/.....bel-right/

Follow up 2: https://rachelcollis.com/2020/.....lton-john/

Thanks for your thoughts!

Rachel

PS. To report back, after testing my new funnel, my sales were are 5.1%. Not bad, but no upsells (I've booked a consultation with you on Friday to look at my upsell page)  

That's awesome that your sales are coming in at a decent rate! Great job! I look forward to diving into the upsell offer with you. 

To answer your question... I've honestly never tried swapping them around like that. The order of blog post of a lifetime followed my a post that gets fans better acquainted with the music , is based on the AIDA funnel formula. Awareness, Interest, Action, Desire.

You are essentially proposing Interest, Awareness, Action, Desire. That shouldn't work as well. But weirder things have happened. All you can really do is try it and see what happens, or try and beat your first email/blog combo.

Whichever way you go, I would start a new campaign and begin getting fresh stats with new subs, rather than editing the existing one.