Re: How do you measure success in online advertising?

From: John Gaskill <gm_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Mon 07 May 2001 13:17:24 -0500

MICHAEL MARTINEZ <michael_at_xenite.org> WROTE:

>All compliments are always appreciated, but I still
>don't understand what the fascination is with click-
>throughs. I mean, is the only reason why the online
>ad industry is expected to produce immediate,
>substantial activity the fact that it CAN produce
>such activity?

Really good advertising for any number of products or
services can and does produce immediate, substantial
activity. The activity could be calls, sales, contest
entries, retail traffic, letters to elected officials,
take your pick on the call to action.

That online advertising is able to produce instant clicks
makes it very trackable. It also makes good advertising
readily apparent when used in the online context because
it produces results immediately.

Print advertising campaigns have long been tracked by
the use of coupons or offers buried deep within long
copy. These devices let the advertiser know people are
or are not reading the ads being run, which ad pulls
better, etc.

Think of the click through as the built in coupon.
Plus, strong ads/offers should produce high response.

>Why is it necessary for a banner ad to produce a certain
>amount of click-through traffic? I've often avoided
>clicking on a banner ad or referral link and still
>visited the site that is being promoted. Should I
>admit that?

It is not necessary, only reflective of how the ad
or medium performs when displayed.

Your behavior is no different than most who read a
print ad in a magazine, put the information away in the
back of their minds and act on it later. If it's the truth,
why not admit it -- we won't love you any less. <g>

>How do you traditional advertising folks measure the
>success of a television advertising campaign? Does
>some measure how many television sets are broken
>by people attempting to jump into the store their set?


If none of the traditional ad folks respond to this read
WHEN ADS WORK by John Philip Jones for a good
discussion of calculating how TV ads pushed product
sales.

>If you set up a Web site today, do nothing to promote
>it but run banner ads, and get 50,000 visitors in the
>first month, is the banner campaign a success even if
>you only got 1,000 click-throughs, or is a dismal
>failure because you only got .1% click-throughs?

Depends on what your stated campaign goals were.
If you projected attracting 500,000 visitors with
1,000,000 ad impressions (one showing per unique viewer
only) you have learned that your ad message was not
powerful enough to draw the audience you wanted.
You have also learned that your copy needs to be
ten times as effective or run to ten times as many likely
prospects to get the traffic you want. This effectiveness
might be achieved by changing the banner content,
the offer, or the site(s) you have chosen to display your banner.

>Yes, I'd rather put up with the ads than have to pay
>for content. But I've got a Web site to promote. I
>have a book to sell. For what it's worth, I stopped
>paying for advertising. Why? Because I couldn't
>measure the success of the advertising.

Could you not measure the success? Or was the
advertising not successful and you did not want
to admit it or know how to fix it?

>Is that the problem with online advertising in general?

I don't think that problem is limited to online advertising
at all. It seems widespread based on the heaps of
poor advertising out there.

Regards all,

John

John Gaskill
jg_at_info-central-usa.com
Beta Testers Wanted
Please sign on at: http://info-central-usa.com/index3.htm



Received on Mon May 07 2001 - 13:17:24 CDT