Comparison of Google’s Advertising Strategies Flatlay VS Micromanipulation

There are a few products with different placement strategies.
A product, almost belongs to the level of micro-manipulation, the whole process of placement is constantly looking for more suitable points to do testing, through changes in a variety of placement strategies to improve the proportion of high-quality users.
B product, half lying flat state, at first simply 1.0 + MAI run, and then aggregated some behavior to do a potential user hit point, put some 2.5 + AEO, the overall more Buddhist, but the overall data has been progress.
C product, pure lying flat state, once tried 2.5 + AEO, also tried to remarketing, and finally tossed a big circle back to lying flat run 1.0, and even in the middle of a period of time due to policy reasons can not pull new, changed to cast the old users and then back to the flow, in fact, also tried to cast the ACE, and finally back to cast the UAC1.0.
The three products almost respectively represent the laying strategy, as well as the regular strategy, as well as the placement of radical strategy.
Three products can not say whose strategy is more appropriate, after all, the three products are ultimately after continuous exploration, leaving the “most appropriate” strategy.
But the difference in staff costs between the three products is a bit big!
Product A required almost 20+ people to support it, including strategy and placement.
Product B was handled by 4-5 students, including 2 optimizers and 3 designers.
Product C barely had 1.5 students to support.
In the end result, all three products can represent the top products in a certain field, in a certain region.
So which strategy would be better? Or is there any strong man, dare to try to modify their own placement strategy, want to try to directly lie flat cast?
From the observation of the situation:
1, if the product belongs to the immediate needs of the product, and the audience area is large enough, directly lying flat is not much of a problem.
2, if it is a pan-entertainment product, not very picky users, but the audience area is not too large, may be half lying flat put also basically OK.
3, if the product audience is not big, more picky about the quality of the user, then it is estimated that only micro-manipulation, but in fact does not mean that he can not lie flat, if the quality of the product can be pulled up, I think you can actually try to lie flat strategy, just I do not have the guts to try, especially after the volume has been rolled up, and should be changed to lie flat to put the data will be very difficult to see at the initial stage, can not be accounted for.

Lying flat strategy inside the core point is through the quality of the product + large-scale placement + just to establish their own brand, and there is a large enough population base plate, the subsequent nature of the placement no matter how to put are considered remarketing, or digging up the remaining potential customers (and sooner or later, the customer will have to come to use).
But if our product quality is sufficient, and in the category within the audience coverage is large enough, such as TOP small loan products, provides a variety of packages can be adapted to a sufficiently large number of people, whether it is worth lying down to try?

Principle (guess):
Lay flat placement, reduce CPM, large-scale placement of customer acquisition to drive the natural volume, combined with the control of low-priced placement swept over all the target customers, the need to consume the market cost is not necessarily more than the selection of the user to put more (precision placement placement just to help Facebook to save exposure so that FB’s revenue is greater), lay flat placement of low-priced strategy, just precise users earlier or later to come in the difference.