From the academic archive. Fiona’s original academic writing. Views are personal and do not represent King’s College London. Historical examples, proposals and opinions retain their original context. Formatting has been repaired; original wording and references are preserved. Any editorial clarification is labelled separately.
Original submission details

Original title: Re: Squatty Potty campaign efficacy evaluation

View original KEATS context ↗ (university access required).

The original question / King’s College London

6.12 Squatty potty_ share your thoughts

1. What are some of the criteria/metrics you may use to decide on the overall efficacy of the campaign? Try and work out at least one of these criteria using the sales data from the spreadsheet. What other metrics (perhaps less numeric ones) could you use to measure efficacy/success? 2. The firm has managed to link sales to video views reasonably well. Where could it improve its effort? What data will help do this in the future? 3. Looking at the Facebook targeting information: Is Squatty Potty managing to target the groups they would like to target? Are there groups being under-represented or not targeted?

Course task reproduced as context. The response below is Fiona’s independent academic work. KEATS source ↗ (university access required).

Explore writing on this question ↗
Fiona’s response

Hi Bea, Your feedback is very thorough and well-structured! Here are some suggestions to improve clarity:

1. Your sales growth analysis is strong. You could make the Customer Acquisition Cost and Paid Views to Generate a Purchase clearer by explaining the implications of these numbers (e.g., is $3.80 per customer a good value?).

2. Great call on attribution models! You might want to specify examples of multi-touch attribution or customer surveys to improve data tracking.

3. Your insights are spot-on, especially regarding targeting males and older audiences. You could strengthen your point by suggesting ad variations for these groups to make it more actionable.

Overall, excellent work! Just a few tweaks to further clarify and deepen your analysis.

References.

  1. No references were listed in the original contribution.
← Back to the journal