# Day three of Battle of the Ads!
> AI dominates engagement while Phil burns cash on impressions. Same CPV, wildly different results—who pivots first? 🚀
- URL: https://b00st.com/blog/battle-of-the-ads/day-three
- Published: 2025-02-01
- Authors: Jason R. Stevens, CFA
- Tags: Ads, Battle, Video, AI, Personalization
## TL;DR
- Through day three, the AI ad had 60 clicks and a 2.16% CTR versus Phil's 27 clicks and 0.52%.
- Phil's ad drew nearly double the impressions, 5,200 to 2,780, but paid $3.93 per click against the AI's $1.79.
- Both ads ended day three at a $0.28 CPV, so cost per view was even while engagement was not.
## Battle of the Ads: Day Three
And just like that, we roll into Day Three of the Battle of the Ads, where the AI content machine and our fearless CEO, Phil, continue their digital duel for ad supremacy. The gloves are off, the budget is flowing, and the numbers are in. Spoiler alert: it's a tale of two very different strategies converging on the same result—at least in one key area.
### CPV Stalemate?
You’d think with all the chaos in the trenches, one side would’ve cracked the code on a lower cost-per-view. But no. Both campaigns ended the day at nearly identical CPVs: **\$0.28 for AI, \$0.28 for Phil.**
It’s like two fighters throwing wildly different punches and somehow landing the same number of hits. Efficiency? Sure.
_But the way they got there couldn’t be more different._
### Impressions: Quantity vs. Quality
Phil’s campaign is a broad-canvas kind of guy—playing the volume game with **up to 2119 impressions a day**, nearly **double** what the AI content campaign is putting up.
But those impressions aren’t translating into clicks. In fact, Phil’s CTR is crawling at a **measly 0.4%–0.6%**, while AI is sitting pretty at **1.6%–2.9%**—**a 4x difference.** People are seeing Phil, they’re just… not clicking.
### Clicks and Views: A Story of Engagement
When it comes to getting actual interaction, the AI campaign is _cleaning up._ Even with lower impressions, it’s pulling in way more clicks (**11–27 per day** compared to Phil’s **6–13**) and a comparable number of views.
#### The lesson?
Eyeballs don’t mean much if they aren’t attached to an interested mind.
### Cost Per Click: Phil Pays the Premium
Phil’s CPC is sitting at a steep **\$3.19–\$6.15**, while AI’s ranges from a more reasonable **\$1.10–\$3.28**. It’s not just that Phil’s ads aren’t getting clicked—it’s that when they do, it _hurts_ the wallet.
#### Total Campaign Performance (Days 1-3)
| Metric | AI Content | Phil |
| ----------- | ---------- | ------- |
| Spend | $107.70 | $106.01 |
| Clicks | 60.0 | 27.0 |
| Impressions | 2780.0 | 5200.0 |
| Views | 698.0 | 613.0 |
| CPV | $0.1543 | $0.1729 |
| CTR (%) | 2.16% | 0.52% |
| CPC | $1.79 | $3.93 |
| CPM | $38.74 | $20.39 |
### So What Now?
It’s clear that Phil’s strategy is burning cash to rack up impressions, but it’s AI that’s converting.
With both sitting at the same CPV, the real question is: **can Phil’s campaign actually make those impressions count?** Or is it time to rethink the playbook?
We’re deep into the battle now. Let’s see who pivots first.