--000000000000212890060cf6ff6d Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000021288d060cf6ff6c" --00000000000021288d060cf6ff6c Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ash, Thank you for the clarification. I have two concerns with this map: 1. The screenshot of what Chuck recommends we remove from the main campaign goes all the way down to that second section jutting out on the right hand side. For the most part, it doesn't seem like we're currently targeting that area. Based on that I drew in red areas in Calgary it see= ms like we'd want to exclude it moving forward. Is that possible? 2. The northernmost section above the 201 seems to all be under 44. It also looks like we aren't targeting there currently so it seems like we wouldn't want to target there either Mostly, it looks like we want to open up that central/southern area. Also, do you have any concerns about us eliminating the northwestern or southeastern sections we are currently targeting? It seems like the new Calgary targeting likely gets the best part of those postal codes but wanted to check. Once we have the map in a place we like, I'll connect with Tim and Chuck to get final approval/feedback. Areas of concern: [image: SCR-20231220-hcr.png] Thanks, On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 12:12=E2=80=AFPM Arshdeep Brar wrote: > Hey Alexa, > > Will already have a lot of control from keywords and demographic settings > that we shouldn't be too worried about the location targeting as much. > Especially in the absence of any data that can suggest some possible > exclusions (so far, we have two postal codes) that's why broadening the > targeting and then cutting back will be the best strategy for us moving > forward. > > Based on the proposed targeting, this is what the map will look like; > > *Ash Brar* > > In Front Marketing > > Results Driven Performance Marketing > > > > 587.969.7574 > > *ash@infrontmarketing.ca * > > Suite 401 =E2=80=93 255 17 Ave SW, Calgary, AB > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Alexa Graziani > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 20, 2023 9:49 AM > *To:* Arshdeep Brar > *Cc:* John McColman ; Patrick Zehnder patrick@infrontmarketing.ca>; Timothy Thomas > *Subject:* Re: Calgary Targeting Update > > Hi Ash, > > To confirm, that means we would: > > - keep our existing targeting and exclusion set (below) > - add "calgary" targeting > - add those two locations as negatives > > > Given that we don't want to target additional areas if they fall in the > 22-44 range, will targeting all of Calgary be too broad? > > Is it possible to share a map of what this would look like in the platfor= m > for the full set of changes (without going live)? > > Finally, I'm having a hard time overlaying the census map with our > tar4geting map. Are those two negatives enough to remove the northeast? I= t > seems like from Chuck's screenshot, we'd probably want to exclude > everything north easter of our current easternmost targeted postal