Re: Respectable Click-through Rate?
KEITH LACY <keithl_at_vistatec.ie> WROTE:
> People really do seem to get hung up on the idea of
> click-through rates. Yes - they have a certain value
> but they're not the be all and end all. If you had a
> shop on a main street you wouldn't get too excited just
> because a bunch of people walked passed (sic) your
> window or maybe a few of them decided to come in and
> have a quick look around and left without buying
> anything, that doesn't pay the bills.
But if nobody ever walks past your window, you'll be
out of business in a heartbeat.
> Click-throughs ... do not tell you much about whether
> what was presented following click-through was read and
> even less about whether it was understood or resulted
> in the desired brand attitude.
But I do know what happens when they don't click
through - they don't read anything at all.
There seems to be some confusion out there. While we
talk about counting clicks, that's only shorthand for
the measure of how many surfers actually visited the
site because of the banner. The clicks certainly don't
matter as 'clicks', but they do matter as a measure of
how many surfers got to see the real ad, the Web page
with the offer and an opportunity to take action, or at
the very least to get exposed to the advertiser's
message in a form that has some chance of actually
getting a point across.
With click rates running at 0.31% and 0.2% (see other
post in the 9/22/00 issue), why don't we just admit
that the Net is a lousy advertising medium and get on
with business?
Hal Pawluk
(626) 966-0058 http://www.pawluk.com/
Monthly web tips and Net notes at
http://www.pawluk.com/pages/endnotes.shtml
It's not marketing if it doesn't go for the throat.
Received on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 20:03:09 CDT
