OpenAI извинились за новый дизайн ChatGPT

OpenAI признала, что новый десктопный ChatGPT вышел перегруженным: слитые в один интерфейс Chat, Work и Codex запутали пользователей и раздули приложение почти в 10 раз. После хейта обновление откатили, а вывод простой: функции надо упаковывать в единый UX без лишнего шума, даже если это помогает росту базы.

➡️ Читайте на сайте: https://aff.top/blog/openai-izvinilis-za-novyi-dizain-chatgpt

🧠 Ещё больше инсайтов → в канале AFF.top

Case study: one missing line caused a 100% reversal

New to the rules? This story is cheap to learn from. A beginner built a clean sweepstakes landing page that earned $1.30 per lead. In two days they generated 180 leads, expecting $234.

They got $0. Every lead was reversed.

The reason was one missing sentence. Their page implied that signing up meant you would definitely receive the prize. Sweepstakes rules require you to be clear that entry is a chance to win, not a guaranteed reward. Without that, the offer was non-compliant (compliant = following the advertiser's and legal rules).

They added one honest line near the button: 'No purchase necessary. Entry gives you a chance to win; winners are selected at random.'

They re-ran the same traffic:
— 175 leads (almost the same volume)
— This time $227.50 paid, with only 3 reversals
— Result: roughly $223 kept, instead of $0

The scary part: the page looked fine to them. The rule was invisible until it cost everything.

The lesson: a single compliance line is the difference between full pay and zero pay. It is not optional decoration.

Next step: open your landing page and check it clearly says winning is a chance, not a promise. Add the line if it is missing.

ChatGPT 5.6 Luna и Terra подешевели

OpenAI резко снизила цены на GPT-5.6 Luna и Terra спустя три недели после релиза, сделав их заметно дешевле для массового использования. Sol осталась премиальной по прежнему прайсу, но получила Fast mode с ускорением до 2,5 раза. Вывод: компания давит ценой и скоростью, чтобы быстрее нарастить спрос и долю рынка.

➡️ Читайте на сайте: https://aff.top/blog/chatgpt-5-6-luna-i-terra-podesheveli

🧠 Ещё больше инсайтов → в канале AFF.top

Доменная зона .web делегирован в корневую зону DNS

Verisign вывела .web в корневую зону DNS: теперь это полноценный TLD, но открытая регистрация ещё не стартовала. Сначала доступ получат владельцы совпадающих доменов в .com через LRP. Вывод для рынка: хорошие EMD в .com могут стать входным билетом в .web, если успеть занять брендовые имена раньше общего запуска.

➡️ Читайте на сайте: https://aff.top/blog/domennaia-zona-web-delegirovan-v-kornevuiu-zonu-dns

🧠 Ещё больше инсайтов → в канале AFF.top

В Facebook Ads появился раздел «Conversations»

Facebook Ads добавил Conversations с автоответом на комментарии: по ключевым словам можно сразу отправлять сообщение в личку. Для арбитража это новый способ прогрева и передачи ссылки без клоаки: в креативе можно просить оставить комментарий, а заинтересованных уводить с вайта на блэк уже в ДМ. Идея спорная, но её стоит тестировать.

➡️ Читайте на сайте: https://aff.top/blog/v-facebook-ads-poiavilsia-razdel-conversations

🧠 Ещё больше инсайтов → в канале AFF.top

Case study: why a beginner moved from social to push and 2x'd results

New to traffic sources? Here is a clean comparison from one person who tried both. They had a sweepstakes offer paying $1.10 per lead and $90 to test.

First they spent $45 on social traffic. The clicks were cheap but the people were not in a 'win a prize' mood. Result: 51 leads, $56 earned, but the advertiser reversed 18 of them as low quality. Real income: about $36 on $45 spent. A loss.

Then they spent the other $45 on push traffic (push = small notification-style ads users opt in to receive). Push tends to bring people who clicked because they actually wanted what the ad showed.

Result from push:
— 39 leads (fewer than social)
— Only 2 reversed
— Real income: about $40.70 on $45 spent

Neither was a big win yet, but here is the key. After tuning, push leads held their quality, so scaling the push budget to $90 returned $108. Scaling the social budget just brought more reversals.

The lesson for beginners: cheap clicks are not the goal. Clicks from people in the right mood are. Push often matches sweepstakes intent better than broad social.

Next step: if your social leads keep getting reversed, test the same offer on one push source with a small budget.

Case study: removing 2 form fields raised completions by 28%

New to lead forms? Small detail, real money. A beginner's sweepstakes form asked for 5 things: name, email, phone, age, and country. Of 600 people who started it, 138 finished. That is a 23% completion rate.

They realized the offer only required email and country to count a valid lead. The other 3 fields were just there 'to be safe'. Each extra field gives the visitor another reason to quit.

They removed name, phone, and age. The form now asked for 2 things: email and country.

Same 600 visitors on the shorter form:
— 177 finished
— Completion rate now 29.5%
— Up from 23% to 29.5%, a 28% relative increase

In money, at $1.25 per lead, the long form earned about $172 per 600 visitors. The short form earned about $221. Same traffic, $49 more, with less work for the user.

A gentle warning: only remove fields the offer does not require. Check the offer details first, because some advertisers do need a phone number.

The lesson: every field you ask for costs you sign-ups. Ask only for what the offer truly needs.

Next step: count the fields on your form, check which the offer actually requires, and delete the rest.