Macs

Little Poundcake in reply to Kukubee

To follow up on this, since I'm a numbers person and I know that some of you are, too: Think about how often you or anyone you know will click on an ad because it looks interesting. Not very often, right? We spent *well* over $10K (I don't remember how much) to get about 1,000 clicks on our ads. Those are expensive clicks. Okay, so we have 1,000 people who did not know about Glitch and then clicked the ad. They ended up on a version of the home page with a big shiny "Play Now!" button. Now what? Only 100 of those people decided to click the "Play Now" button, which took them into the brand new cloud and flamingoes tutorial. Boo: we just lost 90% of those expensive clicks. :( Anyway, bright side! 100 new players! They're playing! Except... oh, shit, we lost all but about 30 of them before they even registered for a real account. Fuuuuuck. When we stretched that trend out over more ad dollars and a longer period of time, it turned out that we would hang on to maaaaaybe 5 of those people for longer than a week. The rest just vanished, usually somewhere around level 3-5, never to return. Glitch was a wonderful, magical thing for those of us who loved it, but it was simply not loved by most people who encountered it in the wild. It sucks, but it's the truth. Tens of thousands of people saw Glitch and did not instantly love it! We don't know what's wrong with them, either. :( Ad conversion was a total shit sandwich. We tried! We put lots and lots of dollars into the ad machine after spending lots and lots of time making a new tutorial for all of those new people. We had smart people helping us target ads towards our most likely players. A few of them came, fewer of them saw, almost none of them stayed. As Kuke mentioned, we needed significantly more players. There was no indication in any of our data that we could get there — or even remotely close — with more advertising. In short, math: sometimes it's a bummer.

a long time ago

13 replies

liked by 17 people