| Course | MT358 Social Media Marketing and AI Optimization |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Targeting memo |
| Length | About 1,040 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT358 Unit 4
Cheap Purchases From People Who Do Not Knit: An MT358 Unit 4 Paid Social Targeting Memo for a Yarn Studio
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT358: Social Media Marketing and AI Optimization
Unit 4 Paid Social Targeting Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The studio, audiences and results are composite; the platform options are described as of fall 2026, and the sources cited are real.
Memo
To: Owners, North Shore Fiber Co. From: Community manager Subject: Paid social targeting, October to December 2026
Recommendation
Shift the $2,400 monthly budget to $450 for lapsed newsletter subscribers, $1,150 for a lookalike audience built from past buyers, $400 for the knitting interest audience and $400 for the platform's broad automated audience, down from $600. Judge every audience by cost per purchase from knitters, against a break-even of $45.24.
Break-Even
The studio's average order is $78 and its gross margin is 58 percent, so each order earns about $45.24 before advertising. Any audience that costs more than $45.24 per purchase from a knitter loses money on the first order, though repeat buying may recover it later. The same line is applied to all four audiences, so they are compared on one standard rather than on whichever metric flatters each. Small gaps between audiences should not drive large moves: Lewis and Rao (2015) showed that ad results swing so much from week to week that even large advertisers struggle to measure returns precisely, and a studio spending $2,400 a month faces that noise in a sharper form.
Results, July to September 2026
Spending totaled $7,200 and the platform reported 196 purchases, an average of $36.73 each. The memo treats platform-reported purchases as generous, since the platform credits purchases it may not have caused, and the social analytics in Unit 9 will reconcile them with tagged links.
By audience, the broad automated audience spent $1,800 for 55 reported purchases, $32.73 each, the cheapest. The lookalike audience spent $2,700 for 70 purchases, $38.57 each. Lapsed subscribers spent $900 for 33 purchases, $27.27 each. The knitting interest audience spent $1,800 for 38 purchases, $47.37 each.
Why Cost per Purchase Misleads
The platform does not report who a buyer is, but the studio's checkout asks one optional question: is this yarn for you or a gift? About four in five buyers answer it. For the broad automated audience, 41 percent of buyers who answered said the yarn was a gift or for a craft other than knitting. The Unit 2 research found that knitters reorder and gift buyers rarely do, so this column, which the platform cannot supply, matters more than any metric it does. Counting only purchases from knitters, the broad audience cost $55.47 per knitter purchase, well above break-even. The lookalike audience cost $43.83 per knitter purchase, lapsed subscribers $28.11 and the interest audience $51.49.
The audience that looked cheapest was cheap because it found people who buy yarn once and never knit with it.
Why the New Split
Lapsed subscribers rise from $300 to $450 because they are the cheapest source of knitter purchases and the pool is large enough to absorb more. The lookalike rises from $900 to $1,150 because it is just under break-even and builds from known knitters. The interest audience falls from $600 to $400 and is kept as a test, because some interest-based buyers become regulars. The broad audience falls from $600 to $400 with the exclusions below added; it is kept at a lower level because the platform's automated audience sometimes finds new knitters the other audiences miss. An automated audience finds more of whatever event it is told to count, and the studio told it to count purchases, not knitter purchases. Until the checkout answer can be sent back to the platform as its own event, the broad audience will keep finding gift buyers.
What Would Reverse Each Decision
Each change rests on a figure, and each figure names the result that would undo it. The lapsed-subscriber increase is capped by audience size: about 5,800 subscribers match to platform accounts, and if frequency rises above four ads per person a month, the extra $150 returns to the lookalike. The lookalike stays at $1,150 only while its cost per knitter purchase stays under break-even; two months above $45.24 would cut it back to $900. The interest audience is kept on trial; if its cost per knitter purchase falls below $45.24 for a quarter, it earns back its $600. The broad audience stays at $400 because it occasionally finds new knitters; if, after the exclusions, fewer than 70 percent of its buyers are knitters, its budget moves to lapsed subscribers.
Exclusions
All audiences will exclude people who bought in the last 30 days, since they have just bought and ads would repeat what the newsletter already tells them. They will exclude wholesale accounts, which buy through a different channel, and staff, whose clicks distort results. And they will exclude addresses outside the United States and Canada, because the studio does not ship elsewhere and the broad audience had been spending on regions it cannot serve.
Platform Options, Dated
The lookalike, interest and broad automated options described here were available on the studio's main ad platform as of September 2026. The checkout question is the studio's own and does not depend on the platform. Platform features change often, and this memo should be checked against current options before each quarter.
What the Memo Cannot Show
Gordon et al. (2019) compared common observational methods with large randomized experiments at Facebook and found that the observational estimates often missed the true effect of the ads by a wide margin. The memo uses platform figures because they are what is available, flags them as generous and leaves reconciliation to Unit 9, where tagged links and codes will show how many of the 196 reported purchases can be traced. The owners should read every cost figure above as a floor, not a final cost. A cleaner answer would come from a holdout test, in which some people in each audience are kept from seeing the ads; Johnson et al. (2017) describe a way to run such tests at much lower cost than buying blank ads, and the studio should ask whether its platform offers one before the next quarter.
References
Gordon, B. R., Zettelmeyer, F., Bhargava, N., & Chapsky, D. (2019). A comparison of approaches to advertising measurement: Evidence from big field experiments at Facebook. Marketing Science, 38(2), 193-225. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2018.1135
Johnson, G. A., Lewis, R. A., & Nubbemeyer, E. I. (2017). Ghost ads: Improving the economics of measuring online ad effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(6), 867-884. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.15.0297
Lewis, R. A., & Rao, J. M. (2015). The unfavorable economics of measuring the returns to advertising. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4), 1941-1973. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv023
The Purdue Global MT358 Unit 4 instructions
Unit 4 asks students to recommend how a paid social budget should be split across audiences and to defend the split in memo form. The recommendation belongs at the top, since the reader will decide from the first page. Past results should be shown with the arithmetic behind each change, and the memo should set a break-even cost per purchase from price and margin. Instructors expect exclusions to be argued as targeting decisions in their own right. Platform targeting options change often, so the memo describes only those it uses and says when they were checked. Where past results are unavailable, assumptions must be stated and labeled. The memo should admit what platform figures cannot show and name a better test.
How this MT358 Unit 4 example is built
This sample's page one states the split and the change for each audience before any table appears. The break-even section computes $45.24 from a $78 order and a 58 percent margin and applies it to all four audiences, with Lewis and Rao on the noise in small ad budgets. Results by audience follow. The central section adds a column the platform cannot supply, purchases by knitters, and reverses the ranking under a highlighted line about cheap buyers who never knit. Each change is then defended, and a separate section names the result that would undo it, including the cap of about 5,800 matched subscribers. Four exclusions, dated platform options and a section on the limits of platform counts close it.
Where the points sit in the MT358 Unit 4 rubric
In most sections, a targeting memo earns its marks through the clarity of the recommendation, the quality of the analysis behind it, the treatment of exclusions and honesty about evidence. A recommendation stated first, with figures, shows command of memo form. Analysis earns more when it goes beyond platform metrics to the customer the business needs. A single break-even line applied to every audience makes comparisons fair. Exclusions with reasons show the budget was aimed. Dated platform descriptions show awareness that options change. Admitting that reported conversions overstate results, and naming a test that would settle it, signals judgment. Figures must add up. Memo headings, short paragraphs and APA 7 references keep the document readable for a busy owner.
Common MT358 Unit 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many targeting memos rank audiences by the platform's cost per purchase and stop there. That rewards whichever audience finds the cheapest buyers, even when those buyers never return. Another frequent problem is a long walkthrough of the ad manager's menus, which dates quickly and shows little reasoning. Exclusions are often missing or listed without reasons. Some memos change several budgets without saying what result would change them back. Check your draft by asking, for each audience, what kind of customer it actually brought and whether that customer is the one the business needs. If the platform cannot answer that, find a field in your own checkout or records that can, and build the memo around it.
Get an MT358 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Along with the rubric, send the brand and monthly budget your Unit 4 scenario sets and any past results by audience you can share, even rough estimates. We return a custom memo in 24-48h, free as a first sample, defending every audience against one common cost line and arguing its exclusions as decisions rather than afterthoughts. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT358 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT358 Unit 1: Brand Community Misstep Post
- MT358 Unit 2: Community Research Brief
- MT358 Unit 3: Six-Week Social Content Plan
- MT358 Unit 5: Optimization Exercise
- MT358 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT358 Unit 7: Influencer and Disclosure Plan
- MT358 Unit 8: Crisis Response Protocol
- MT358 Unit 9: Social Analytics Report
- MT358 Unit 10: Social Campaign Plan
- MT357 Unit 4: Owned Digital Asset Audit
- MT355 Unit 4: Marketing Questionnaire Draft
- MT340 Unit 4: Conflict Style Assessment Paper
- MT330 Unit 4: International Competitor Review
MT358 Unit 4 questions, answered
What if my scenario has no past ad results?
Build the memo on stated assumptions: a break-even cost per purchase from price and margin, and estimated costs per audience from cited benchmarks, clearly labeled. Explain which audience you would test first and which result would shift the split. Graders tend to value transparent reasoning over invented precision, especially in a unit about defending spend.
Should I describe the platform's targeting options in detail?
Describe only the options your memo uses, and record when you last looked at them. Social platforms have repeatedly removed or renamed targeting categories, so a detailed walkthrough dates fast and adds little. The analysis lies in why each audience deserves money and who is deliberately excluded, not in the ad manager's menus.
How do exclusions fit into a targeting memo?
As decisions with reasons. Excluding recent buyers avoids paying to reach people who just purchased; excluding regions you cannot serve prevents wasted clicks. List each exclusion, why it exists and what it saves. A memo that argues exclusions as carefully as audiences shows a grader the budget was aimed rather than scattered.
Where can I find a free MT358 Unit 4 sample paper?
The full MT358 Unit 4 targeting memo appears on this page, reallocating a yarn studio's $2,400 monthly budget by cost per knitter purchase.
Why does the cheapest audience lose budget in the MT358 Unit 4 sample?
Forty-one percent of its buyers were not knitters, so counting only knitter purchases raised its cost to $55.47, above the studio's $45.24 break-even.