Mossy Oak Gamekeeper Media

With the ability to touch our highly targeted consumers through multiple channels, our native  advertising and performance marketing team works with you to develop a strategic marketing plan that will help you meet your marketing goals.  We effectively engage and re-engage through our proprietary audience activation strategies creating a consistent stream of relevant content and messaging from multiple angles keeping your brand and products top of mind with our proprietary audience of over 5 million consumers.

Mossy Oak Gamekeeper Media Team:

Greg Sugg – Senior Advertising Account Manager –  – gsugg@mossyoak.com

Austin Boyd  – President of Performance Marketing – austin@mossyoakads.com

Adam Boyd – VP of Sales Performance Marketing – adam@mossyoakads.com

Trey Byers – VP of Digital Strategy Performance Marketing – trey@mossyoakads.com 

Wendy McFarland – Advertising and Performance Marketing Sales Associate  – wendy@mossyoakads.com 

Mossy Oak Performance Marketing Comparison

Post-Click Engagement Comparison with Mossy Oak Ads

The Challenge: Quality Over Quantity in Paid Social 

For many brands running paid social campaigns, driving raw clicks is easy, but driving meaningful engagement can prove difficult. A common struggle is employing agencies without a dedicated audience, who must rely on detailed targeting and LAL audiences to run their campaigns. Unfortunately, that traffic tends to optimize towards users who are very prone to click but never convert, resulting in ad spend on traffic that immediately bounces.

To evaluate the actual impact of quality of traffic from a qualified audience, a direct performance comparison was conducted between Mossy Oak Ads and a top-tier industry agency for a major tractor manufacturer. While both utilized “fb / paid” channels, the results highlighted a stark contrast in the precision of their underlying audience targeting and proprietary new-user acquisition strategies.

The Solution: Mossy Oak’s Proprietary Audience 

Rather than relying on broad algorithmic guessing, the campaign used Mossy Oak Ads’ established “GAMEKEEPER” audiences and Mossy Oak Ads’ “New User Acquisition Strategy Template”.

The Results: A Night and Day Difference in Traffic Quality

The results revealed a stark difference in post-click behavior. While the competitor generated clicks, Mossy Oak Ads generated actual, meaningful engagement.

Here is how Mossy Oak Ads compares to the competitor’s top-performing campaigns:

1. Event Count: Leading the Pack

Despite generating highly qualified traffic and utilizing a significantly smaller budget, Mossy Oak Ads did not sacrifice volume. The single Mossy Oak campaign drove 903 events, vastly outperforming the top competitor’s best campaign, which drove only 462 events with a dismal 0.7% engagement rate.

2. Average Engagement Time: Over 12x Longer The most striking metric was how long users stayed on the site.

• Competitor Average: Across 7 different campaigns, the competitor traffic averaged between 0 and 5 seconds per session. This indicates a massive bounce rate and low-quality, “accidental” clicks.
• Mossy Oak Ads: Users brought in by Mossy Oak spent an average of 1 minute and 3 seconds per session. This proves a genuine interest in the content/product.

3. Engagement Rate: Consistent and High
   
   Driving high volume means nothing if the users aren’t engaging.

• Competitor: The competitor’s engagement rates were highly volatile and generally poor, with most campaigns hovering between 0.0% and 10.2%, and only one outlier reaching 18.2% on a remarkably low event count (just 39 events).
• Mossy Oak Ads: Achieved a strong 15.5% engagement rate, proving that a significant portion of visitors were actively interacting with the site rather than bouncing immediately.

The Verdict: Real Intent, Not Just Cheap Clicks

The data clearly shows that not all “fb / paid” traffic is created equal. The competitor campaigns brought in empty traffic, supplying users who clicked but left within 0 to 5 seconds.

By contrast, Mossy Oak Ads’ audience and strategies successfully identified and delivered a highly engaged, qualified audience. With an average engagement time of 1 minute and 3 seconds and a 15.5% engagement rate on high volume, Mossy Oak proves that precision targeting is key to maximizing ad spend and driving real results.

Mossy Oak Performance Marketing Case Study: The First-Party Data vs. Algorithmic Targeting

Executive Summary

In digital advertising, the allure of algorithmic targeting and Lookalike audiences often overshadows the foundational power of a verified customer list. This case study evaluates the lead-quality density across four distinct audience types—ranging from broad platform targeting to a tightly controlled, verified first-party list.

The goal was to measure the success rate of finding highly qualified leads (actual tractor owners) and to determine exactly how much value is lost when relying on platform algorithms versus using your own verified data.

Objective

To measure the percentage of captured leads who answered “Yes” to owning a tractor across standard prospecting audiences (Detailed Targeting, Advantage+, Lookalike) and compare them directly against a benchmark audience of purely verified tractor owners.

Methodology

During a promotional campaign (Gamekeeper Giveaway), users were asked a definitive qualifying question: “Do you own a tractor?” We segmented the campaign into four distinct ad sets to evaluate targeting efficiency:

1. The Benchmark (Verified List): A highly controlled test audience targeting only known, verified tractor owners from owned data.
2. Lookalike Audience (LAL): An audience seeded from a list of known tractor owners, relying on the platform to find similar profiles.
3. Detailed Targeting (DT): Standard platform interest targeting (tractors + hunting).
4. Advantage+ Audience: Broad, algorithmic targeting driven by the platform’s machine learning.

Results

The data reveals a staggering gap between the performance of owned, verified data and even the most advanced algorithmic prospecting tools.

Key Takeaways & Analysis

• The Staggering Power of a Verified List: The benchmark audience yielded a 95% qualification rate. This is the gold standard. When you target a verified list, nearly every dollar spent goes directly to a qualified prospect. 
• Lookalikes Are Good, But Flawed: The Lookalike audience (25%) was the clear winner among the prospecting strategies, offering a 25% relative performance lift over standard targeting. However, when compared to the verified list, reality sets in: even with the best prospecting audience, you are still paying for 75% of the traffic being unqualified.
• The Illusion of Advanced Targeting: Detailed Targeting (20.00%) and Advantage+ (19.96%) performed identically. This proves that while platform algorithms are good at spending budget efficiently, they are highly inefficient at finding niche, high-intent buyers without being spoon-fed a verified list.

Conclusion

Platform algorithms and Lookalike audiences are necessary evils for scaling and prospecting, but they are incredibly inefficient compared to targeting owned data.

This test proves that building, owning, or partnering with a company that has a verified list is the single most valuable asset in lead generation. A Lookalike audience might be the “best of the rest,” but capturing a verified list guarantees that 95% of your ad spend reaches your ideal customer, drastically reducing wasted budget on unqualified clicks.