Why is 'Revenue Per Visit' (RPV) a more telling metric than 'Average Revenue Per Paying User' (ARPPU) when assessing ad campaign effectiveness?

'Revenue Per Visit' (RPV) is a more telling metric than 'Average Revenue Per Paying User' (ARPPU) when assessing ad campaign effectiveness because RPV accounts for all visitors generated by the ad campaign, providing a holistic view of its efficiency in driving revenue, whereas ARPPU only considers the spending habits of paying users, neglecting the overall conversion rate. RPV measures the average revenue generated from each visit to the game, regardless of whether the visitor makes a purchase. This metric reflects the effectiveness of the ad campaign in attracting players who are likely to engage with the game and contribute to its revenue, even if they don't immediately make a purchase. ARPPU, on the other hand, only focuses on the revenue generated by paying users. While a high ARPPU is desirable, it doesn't reveal anything about the percentage of visitors who actually convert into paying users. An ad campaign might generate a high ARPPU by attracting a small number of high-spending players, but if the overall conversion rate is low, the campaign might not be as efficient as one that generates a lower ARPPU but attracts a larger number of paying users. RPV provides a more comprehensive picture of the ad campaign's impact on the game's revenue by considering both the number of visitors and their spending habits. For example, an ad campaign with a high RPV indicates that the ad is effectively attracting players who are likely to engage with the game and contribute to its revenue, regardless of their spending level. Therefore, RPV is a more reliable metric for assessing the overall effectiveness of an ad campaign in driving long-term financial success.'