When targeting the same audience, why is my Microproximity campaign delivering in full, while my DID campaign is struggling?
Microproximity campaigns typically pick up more devices compared to DID (Device ID) campaigns due to differences in their targeting and detection mechanisms.
- Geoframe Precision:
- Microproximity: The geoframes in microproximity campaigns are generally more lenient or loose. This means that the range for device detection is wider, allowing for a quicker pickup of devices that enter the designated area. The goal is to capture a larger audience within a broader geographic range.
- DID (Device ID): In DID campaigns, the geoframes are often more precise and require devices to remain within a specific area for a longer duration. This precision may result in a slower accumulation of devices, as they need to stay within the defined boundaries for an extended period to be considered part of the campaign.
- Microproximity: The technology used in microproximity campaigns is designed for fast and efficient device detection. It can quickly identify and pick up devices as soon as they enter the geofenced area, even if they only stay briefly.
- DID (Device ID): Device ID campaigns may have a slower pickup rate because they rely on the continuous presence of devices within the geoframe for a set amount of time. This approach aims to ensure that the devices being targeted are more likely to be engaged or spend significant time in the specified location.
In summary, the looser geoframes and faster detection technology of microproximity campaigns make them capable of picking up a larger number of devices quickly. On the other hand, DID campaigns, with stricter geoframes and a focus on longer device presence, may have a slower but potentially more engaged audience.