Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Facebook & Instagram

---

Facebook Sweeps question (17)

---

Trying a grocery sweep offer and I need opinions on how I should do this

ad>4 question quiz>thank you page to qualify lead >offer

ad>4 question quiz (email optin on completion)>offer

(using clickfunnels btw)


I'm asking because I feel like sending a lead from the initial lander then straight to the offer will get me banned on Facebook a lot faster than if I were to send the lead to a different fresh domain just to introduced and qualify the lead after the quiz. I also feel like my CPL will be a little lower with AD>QUIZ>TY PAGE>OFFER but I do understand the benefits of building a list.
What would you do? any suggestions and opinions are appreciated.

---

So in all my experience, Facebook never looks beyond the lander. The bots will never go beyond that point. The only time it might ever happen is if it is a real person, and then you are almost certainly banned.

And I say this mainly based upon my WH experience and never once seeing that they went beyond the first page in hundreds and hundreds of ads.

---

So maybe the thank you page isn't needed at all? I could just go ad>quiz lead fires on last question button>offer ? Or just play it safe anyway with the TY Page? how often does a real human check your ads anyway?

---

Fair warning, I never did great with Sweeps on Facebook, so take this with a grain of salt.

Yes, I think you could do ad->quiz->offer page. Because if a person checks it, you're probably toast anyway.

As to how often, hard to say. I once had a FB employee go through a multi-step survey and never heard a word. Ad is still up months later and account has spent big since as well. I suspect if it gets flagged is when they do, but that is just my suspicion.

The key is to avoid making your ad and quiz look like a sweep, while still getting it to convert.

---

I don't run sweeps myself, so can't speak from personal experience.

But based on what I know about FB, and what I've heard from other affiliates, I doubt quiz landers will pass a manual review in either of your two scenarios.

As for automatic "flagging" by the FB bot, I'd be interested to see which of the two scenarios will last longer as well.

Ultimately though, I think we can agree that FB doesn't like sweeps - offers or landers.

Here's a thought: If you're planning on building a list anyways, you probably wouldn't want to limit yourself to promoting sweeps offers in the backend. So why not build a list in a more "legitimate" niche that will stand to last longer on FB?

That way, you can push offers that are relevant to that niche, plus sweeps offers (and any other offers that have broad appeal).

I don't have niche suggestions off the top of my head, but that's what spy tools are for!

(BTW, here's a new FB spy tool that's offering free access - for now.)


Amy

---

I dunno, I've had quizzes and even spinners run on FB for quite a while with no major ban issues in the past.

Have the pixel fire as an add to cart or similar on the CTA w/ js before heading to the offer page.

As long as it all looks like legit lead-gen type sweepstakes (grocery vouchers are usually safe) I doubt you'll run into any big trouble.

If you do, just say that you're an agency and you were just running ads for your client.

---

Your ad and prelander are most important for the bots yes. So avoid any aggressive, suspicious, spammy wordings/sentences etc. Which is better is just matter of testing, depends on so many factors!

---

Thanks for that insight! But how long ago was "in the past"? FB has gotten super-aggressive in banning in recent months.

And are you only firing the pixel on the CTA click? There's actually a way to trigger the conversions pixel without having to embed it on the offer page (which is a big no-no and risky as hell - can get the ad account banned by association if any other affiliate gets banned).

Here's the solution:

http://prosper.tracking202.com/blog/...-s2s-postbacks

And apparently Prosper has a free plan now!



Amy

---

I haven't run FB since February since I really only use it for scaling. But. FB is always "super-aggressive in banning in recent months"

I figure that's just its permanent state.

Most network's offer pages do make it a bit easier to deal with pixels (like ClickDealer, you can literally copy and paste). But yes, I never put my pixel on the offer page, not because it's risky (it definitely is, but tons of affiliates are doing it and the networks and advertisers know it, and are prepared with back up domains, just like running pops/push/etc. -- and most big FB affiliates have tons of back up accounts when they get banned) but because it's a pain to setup and I like my pixel

My way is pretty simple, FB can optimize for the 'add to cart' just as well as a sale on an offer page, and I can do some simple math for the CTR / CR based on the conversions that get posted back to the network and my tracker.

Proper202's deferred pixel thing is really slick, if I were running FB as my main gig, I would totally be taking advantage of it!

---

You're right, but it looks like this time things got even tougher in April-May around the market. In terms of sweeps, it looks like FB bans like an insane anything related to leadgen as well as to cc subs offers. Maybe it's all about the "cleanliness" of funnels but it might be really difficult to compete for traffic with someone who is still able to run aggressive landers/prelanders.

Well, we're 100% focused on cc submit sweeps and have the dynamic FB pixel implementation for almost all of our offers (you just need to pass your FB pixel id via some sub parameter in your tracking link to make it work) and to be honest we don't know any facts proving that practice like this is a risky thing. We tried running cc submit sweeps with and without the pixel (as well as with different kind of pixel implementations) and the result is that FB bans campaigns without the pixels as aggressively as those with the pixel. And as far as affiliates tend to scale their campaigns mostly by launching as many accounts as they can, it's more reasonable to run it using the automated pixel optimisation since it is usually more efficient in terms of epc.

---

It would also depend on how aggressive the ads and offers are. I haven't promoted cc submits on FB, but I'd imagine that FB would have more of a problem with the type of offer than the fact that the offer page contains pixels from lots of advertisers. As such, any possible risks that comes with putting pixels on the offer page may be masked by how quickly the accounts are getting banned due to the nature of the ads and this type of offers.

BTW thanks for making that valuable post on sweeps trends - much appreciated!

https://stmforum.com/forum/showthrea...ds-in-Vertical



Amy

---

First of all, I'd like to provide a bit more info on the FB pixel implementation for CC Subs.

One of the ways of FB pixel implementation is to put the following code on the 'Thank you page' or any other page user sees once the card is submitted. It's a default code that FB offers, tracking event - Lead.

The most important part here is FB_PIXEL_ID, the variable which actually identifies the FB advertiser. So in fact the offer page doesn't contain pixels from lots of advertisers but one at a time since FB_PIXEL_ID is usually being passed dynamically by an affiliate as a sub-parameter in his tracking link.

The second point is that usually the FB pixel is being implemented not on the offer page (with all the aggressive things) but some other page, and pretty often that page is hosted on a different domain and contains no aggressiveness at all.

Of course, we can't say for sure if using the FB pixel for cc subs is 100% safe since FB might use some information coming with it against the advertisers. But we can say for sure that it's really reasonable to run sweeps with the pixel. 10 out of our top 10 FB affiliates run their ads with the pixel

---

Hey all,

As a Leadgen sweepstake advertisers we work with quite handfull FB publishers. Indeed lately many FB accounts gets banned but in order to play safe here are few TIPS to keep in mind.

Prelanders
- Try not to have too many Interested related questions. The more the questions, the higher the bounce of users from hosted prelanders
- Try Typeform and other survery related prelanders
- Google DOC is a big NO-NO. (Not a good looking prelanders and can get banned)
- While implementing pixels from the End publisher> Affiliate network> Affiliate > FB Ads manager, try not to pass on the referrals (Website domain from Advertsier to FB Ads manager).
- Try limiting constant changing of the prelanders (Less split test of prelanders for higher CTRs) any changes FB doesnt like and higher chances of getting banned.

Lookalike Audiences
- Ask for a list of audience from the advertisers (Be it a leadgen, CC submit, Ecom) Email addresses should do the job.
- Try focusing on a very particular niche, angle, product. Try going broad first, dont narrow with audience in the start. Less CPC/CPM in the start, track your conversions, let the FB AI pixel play its role, apply the LLA from the adv, CPC/CPM will increase a bit afterwards but also the performance of your's with the advertiser.

Create your Angles
- Dont compete with others, cut down your competition in the market. Approaches, techniques can be copied but If your competitor (Other Affiliates ) promoting OldSchool Iphones and Samsung, try maybe Airpods, Samsung Buds, something along that line but different product/landing page.

---

Nice tips, I’ll be using some of these for sure. Thanks bro.


Sent from my iPhone using STM Forums mobile app

---

Thank you for that information!

However, my opinion remains that FB can still ban by association.

Passing the pixel ID one at a time or not, each time the code is loaded with a specific pixel ID FB would be "alerted", so all the pixel IDs would be associated with the page the pixel is installed on.

Whether or not the thank you page is on the same domain as the offer page, all the pixel IDs would still be associated with the same thank you page.

Therefore, when FB flags one affiliate's ad account - either due to aggressive ads or the nature of the offer - the thank you page would be "tainted" which can then put all other affiliates' pixel IDs > ad accounts under risk.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong in my reasoning above.

(Of course, this is assuming that the "banning by association" premise is true, which I don't think anyone has proof of, only anecdotal "evidence".)

I've run blackhat in the past (accounts, cloaking, the works) and FOOTPRINTS are what I've learned to avoid. And even after I started running 100% whitehat, I would still try to avoid footprints as much as possible - and having the same page load multiple pixel IDs is definitely a big footprint.

And by making my points, I'm in no way criticizing your affiliate network - FRST Media is one of the leaders in sweeps offers and your system is as good as any network's or better! (Note: To see some of the wisdom contributed by FRST Media on sweeps offers, please see this sweeps guide.)

Rather, this is a problem that's intrinsic to the traditional affiliate linking model.

Fortunately though, there are other ways to implement the pixel to minimize the risks:

https://stmforum.com/forum/showthrea...Your-FB-Pixels

And if anyone knows of any other way to implement the pixel safely and wouldn't mind sharing, I would love to include that in the lesson on pixels above!




Amy

---

Definitely worth moving the Pixel setup with advertisers from JV to HTML.

JV Setup:
<script>
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(argum ents)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version ='2.0';
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script',
'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js');
fbq('init', 'FB_PIXEL_ID');
fbq('track', 'Lead');
</script>
<noscript>
<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none"
src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=FB_PIXEL_ID&ev=Lead&noscript=1"/>
</noscript>

and HTML Setup would be like:

<img height="1" width="1" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id={Tracking_token}&ev=Lead&noscript=1"/>





Hary

---

Any facts proving that it's a safer way to implement the pixel? Please, share if you have any info on that.

According to our tests, unfortunately, it doesn't really matter JS or HTML, FB bans like an insane in both cases if you run aggressive ads.

---

Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Facebook & Instagram