RE: The potential of banner ads
ANDREW DEL <Andrewedel_at_aol.com> WROTE:
>Everyone loves to look at this downturn in the .com
>economy with gloom and sadness. I look to it with a
>positive outlook. No longer will companies with whacko
>ideas and business models be able to overwhelm consumers
>with muddled messages. No longer will companies that
>sell below cost but "make it up in volume" be able to
>operate without some basic business reasoning. Virtually
>everyone I know from the Internet world looked to this
>as a revolution that would turn everything we knew upside
>down. Let's use this time to bring reality back into the
>picture.
Whilst I mostly agree with your supply and demand
argument (it's certainly a factor) what economists
fail to recognize with their 'perfect market/perfect
info' S&D graph is the potential to distort.
Which is largely what marketers tend to try to do IMHO
- typically by differentiating their service and
building brand (segmenting etc)(redefining S&D under
different conditions - premium banner inventory has a
different S&D to bulk)
So what i'm saying is that while it holds for
commodities, all banner inventory is not,as yet,
created equal, whether your banner is shown on a porn
site or redirection service Vs yahoo or AOL does count.
I think its 'very basic' to economists, but not to
marketers.
My view is to agree that falling CPM's are driven by a
lack of demand (and oversupply) however I have seen
first hand enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that
previously high CPM's weren't justified on an ROI
basis either. (sorry no 'serious' study - can't you
just trust me? ;)
Simon Lusted
The Advergaming Guy
www.thatgame.com
Received on Mon May 07 2001 - 13:44:58 CDT
