We have a media buy with Pandora. For mobile users,(once clicked on banner), they are directed to our site inside of the pandora app. There app does not accept GA cookies. Does anyone have any work arounds for tracking 3rd party in-app visitors? We are currently using UTM urls for inbound clicks, so we see initial "land", but nothing more than that.
We are considering creating a duplicate of our site and dedicate it to pandora visitors. This will give us aggregate numbers, but not sessions.
Thanks,
Udi
Mobile applications such as Pandora, Facebook, Twitter etc do not pass referrer information.
There are many articles around this if you search on Google, such as: http://searchengineland.com/rip-referrer-data-how-mobile-apps-can-kill-your-mobile-metrics-79982
All visitors from mobile applications will appear in the 'Direct' section of GA.
As you mention, the use of unique UTM click url will at the very least allow you to see where the user has come from.
Be aware of the discrepancies you will see between click 'redirects' from an accredited ad server such as DFP and GA 'visits' two very different methodologies.
Related
I am trying to make web tracking referral system, i learn a many ways to do that, such as cookies, web beacon, and web fingerprinting, but i don't find satisfying answer about difference of cookies and web beacon. So what is the difference between web beacon and cookies?
Web beacons, which are also known as clear GIFs, Web bugs or pixel
tags, are often used in combination with cookies. They are images
(often transparent) that are part of Web pages. At Monster, Web
beacons allow us to count users who have visited certain pages and to
generate statistics about how our site is used. They are not used to
access personally identifiable information.
Unlike cookies, you cannot decline Web beacons. However, setting your
browser to decline cookies or to prompt you for a response will keep
Web beacons from tracking your activity.
Check this link: What You Need to Know About Cookies and Web Beacons.
Your question is so general. I suggest you check these link and then go for more ask more specific questions if you has some:
Cookies and Web Beacons
Cookie & Web Beacon Policy
COOKIES, WEB BEACONS AND OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
5 Things You Need to Know About Beacon Technology
I have a chrome extension that im looking to monetize with subscription and free trial.
I have followed all the guide detailed here: https://developer.chrome.com/webstore/one_time_payments
Everything works, its all good, just now I need to know how to actually trigger the payment flow when a user decides they want to pay for my extension.
I can see that there is a "buy.js" for in-app purchases but im not sure how you are supposed to do it for one-time payments.
The only way I can see of doing it is by opening a new tab to my chrome store page and then somehow educating the user that they need to press the orange button...
Theres got to be a better way of doing it than that tho, surely??
If you want your extension to be paid using Chrome Web Store Payments, you have to follow Chrome Web Store Payments rules, which include fixed price tiers and the fact that payment must be initiated by Chrome Web Store. The in-app purchases work differently.
So yes, your users will have to subscribe using the orange button in your extension's Chrome Web Store entry. Usually they need not to be "educated" to do that: after all, that is the page they installed your extension from, and the orange button was already there.
Depending on which kind of free trial experience you offer, you can display relevant reminders to your users.
For example, if your free trial limits some functionality of the extension, you can prompt the users to subscribe when they try to use one of the premium functions, and/or display a Subscribe button in a visible part of your extension that links to your Chrome Web Store entry.
If your free trial is time-limited, you can display a counter of how many free-trial days your users have remaining, and the Subscribe button mentioned above. When the trial period is over you can automatically alert the users and open the Chrome Web Store entry of your extension. This latter approach (time limited free trial period) is the one I am currently using in my extensions and so far I've had no problems with the users or confusion on their part.
Having googled various iterations and looked at the Facebook info I'm none the wiser.
What I'm looking to do is have the ability to cross reference my business page on Facebook and where a user has Liked our page they can then login to our app, thus if they unlike us their account is disabled?
Basically having written a free app that could be widely used for what our business provides we get a simplified marketing strategy.
The app I have is built around jQuery Mobile and links to a MySQL database.
Would the user register an account with me and then Like us on Facebook for us to cross reference the FaceBook API's? or would I have to have full FaceBook login? Or even worse is this not possible?
So I am at my wits end here. Our company has paid for a "PRO" account which I assume stands for "Professional". The need we have is to upload and host videos with Vimeo. However, these videos should not be available to the world. Hence the need for our account, our entire account, to be in "Private" mode. But we still need to keep each client's videos grouped or categorized together for management purposes.
Unfortunately I have not been able to find any way to do this when a "PRO" account is in private mode. Per the documentation at (https://vimeo.com/help/faq/vimeo-membership/vimeo-pro#how-can-i-share-my-videos-if-im-in-private-mode) accounts which are in private mode cannot use Albums, Channels, or Groups regardless of how much they paid for membership. The documentation goes on to recommend using Portfolios, but there is no API integration for portfolios whatsoever.
So does anyone know of how to accomplish this "seemingly" simple task of taking say 3 clients and uploading 4 videos each, but yet have all the videos categorized or grouped by client? The only two ways I've come up with so far is to rename the videos a certain way before uploading and/or creating and maintaining a second, seperate database on my own which takes care of the sorting and management. I would rather not do either of these options though. I'd like to just use the API with the account that I paid for on Vimeo.
You have two options
Vimeo's in beta API3 has portfolio support. You can request access via https://vimeo.com/help/contact
If your account is not in private mode, but all of your videos are marked "Hidden from Vimeo" then the videos will be private on Vimeo, available via an embed on your own website, and able to be added to albums.
I would recommend both choices, Switch to API3 and start marking your videos "Hide from Vimeo" instead of marking your whole account as private
Today I noticed that in the Chrome web store dashboard, under my extension's settings there is a check-box labeled "Ads Behavior", and whose description is "This extension injects ads into some third-party websites.".
My questions are:
Can an ad-supported extension inject advertisements in a page visited by the user?
If so, what is an acceptable policy?
Can the extension replace existing advertisements (even though that seems to me kind of unethical/stealing) or must it only create new ones?
Is it possible to use any ads network or must it be adsense?
Thanks
Is it possible to use any ads network or must it be adsense?
Actually it can't be AdSense. It's specifically mentionned in their program policies:
Currently, we don't permit Google ads or AdSense for search boxes to be distributed through software applications, including but not limited to, toolbars, browser extensions and desktop applications.
I wonder if any ad provider allows such a thing.
Can an ad-supported extension inject advertisements in a page visited by the user?
The fact the checkbox exists suggests it's acceptable as long as you declare it, so users are aware of it.
If so, what is an acceptable policy?
I would argue anything that makes it clear to users what you're doing and follows the terms of the ad network.
Can the extension replace existing advertisements (even though that seems to me kind of unethical/stealing) or must it only create new ones?
Agree it's unethical, most content and apps out there cost money and it deprives publishers. But as with a lot of extensions, it's seen by the browser as the user's choice. That's basically how the web works - users have control over the client. The most popular extensions for browsers are ad blockers, so I doubt the Chrome team would ban an extension that swapped ads. Please do consider the website owners though. Adding ads is at least better than replacing them.
Is it possible to use any ads network or must it be adsense?
Any, I'm fairly sure. Google wants Chrome to be seen as generally independent from its services. You'll even see Google's various competitors promoted in the Chrome Web Store at times for that reason.
*However*, there's a big caveat here. It's very possible this kind of ad injection is forbidden by the ad network in question. It's certainly the case with many affiliate links, that you can't just inject your own, or swap in your own, link. The argument is the user was already going to click on it anyway. So if you're injecting ads, the biggest constraint is going to be your ad provider, not Chrome.
I too had concerns about this, specifically a Chrome app extension called Bookmark Sentry as while it does do a great job of managing your bookmarks, it also injects itself and intercepts advertisements replacing it with it's own affiliate network.
Specifically in viewing the source code it appeared to contain a 'whitelist' and 'blacklist' of sites to intercept advertising while navigating. The user is given the choice to opt-out of advertising in settings but it is poorly explained as 'marketing' with no explanation as to what it is doing.
I raised concerns to Google Chrome through flagging of abuse. Through a contact I was informed however that:
"Ad injections are not in violation of the Chrome Web Store program policies. The policy requires that ads must be presented in the context of the extension or, when present within another page, ads must be outside the page's normal flow and clearly state which extension they are bundled with. We believe that ads are a legitimate way to monetize, but that they should be a known cost to the extension user."
So in this particular case at least, Google viewed it as acceptable, curiously both Kaspersky Labs and Microsoft Security Essentials reported this immediately to me as malware and removed the Extension.