RE: Cost-per-Action Advertising
JOHN GASKILL <gm_at_info-central-usa.com> WROTE:
> Had many
> dot-bombs thought about their spending relative
> to the costs of production and distribution, they
> might still be around today.
Not if they had to rely on cost-per-action to pay the
bills. Especially not if it's the cut of that they get
from interactive agencies. How do you think high volume
sites GET traffic to their sites? No web site generates
high traffic just by virtue of being on the web. They
get traffic by marketing. And get the content that it
takes to keep the traffic on a site long enough to spot
ads and click on them? CPA also doesn't take into
account all the people that go to a store looking for
a product, see a big shelf of things, and pick up one
they've seen online because it's (now -from being seen)
a "known" item - a brand name that stands out from all
the rest because they saw it repeatedly on their
favorite web site. IMHO, the only one who benefits from
cost per click is the advertiser. They get all that
brand exposure (all the views that weren't clicks)
without having to pay for it.
What would make sense from the publisher's point of
view would be an ad rate and extra income if a banner
was click on and an order placed.
Janet Attard, author
- The Home Office and Small Business Answer Book
- Business Know-How: An Operational Guide for Home-Based
and Micro-Sized Businesses
Start, Grow and Manage Your Business with help from
Business Know-How(sm)
http://www.businessknowhow.com
Received on Wed May 09 2001 - 15:34:16 CDT
