Content for sale, commentary on target marketing. (RE: Will They Pay?)

From: Justin W. Hitt <Justin.Hitt_at_hittpansophism.com>
Date: Tue 12 Jun 2001 12:00:48 -0500

AAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!

Okay, Okay, enough of this debate on whether people
will pay for content or not. The facts are some
people currently pay for content, more people would
pay for content if it provided the value, and many
people will never pay for content. With that, I ask
you to consider this: If you are going to provide
content for sale, what would help you most likely
find those who would pay for it?

I have also seen a lot of discussions on larger ads,
smaller ads, ads inserted in emails, and the like.
With this, the facts are people don't visit websites
for advertisements, visitors don't always click
through to ads, ad rates are poor, and the X10 ads
are annoying. I ask you to consider this question:
What functions or strategies would make advertising
more desirable and generate =
better results for the consumer?

Every user is different, some users use the Internet
for games, others porn, most for some for of
communications, for an educational and information
resource, and other reasons to numerous to mention.
Just like any other business, you must target those
customers most likely to purchase and use your
product or service. It doesn't matter if the majority
of the available customer would never use your product,
you only want to reach those who specifically want
your product. A confusing and convoluted message if
you throw in all the fancy jargon of the Internet.

Provide what your customer base wants and they will
pay for it. My sites membership area only needs 5,000
members to be profitable, so I limit my efforts to
seek out those individual business owners and key
employees who want to increase their education in
business and desire learning. I have only to find
5,000 out of a possible 2-3 million business users
world wide. (An assumption that the majority of
business users on the internet would never pay for
content.) This same model may not work for a larger organization.

Is it possible that the effectiveness of advertising
in general have never changed, but that the
generalization of advertising online has diluted the
response rates? I have banners that generate a 5%
click through rate, but only when they are on a
business to business related site with an audience
that consists of mostly business owners. In the
general market this banner pulls only a 0.01% click
through. How do I know this? I tested it!

There has been a lot of research about banner blindness
and other usability related issues in relation to how
a user uses a site. Has anyone consider using
advertising to get those who are NOT INTERESTED in
your product and service off your site? I have, and
after I did that (as well as place banners on pages
that I don't mind my visitors leaving from) I was able
to improve my advertising value to the advertiser.

Strategically placing banners improved my click through
to advertisers to between 0.5 - 1.0% while improving
second and third time visitors by about 9% -- of
course a lot of this information is based on my
weblogs which I agree are not accurate because of
differences caches, browser, and other devices on
the Internet. I am also in the practice of measuring
advertisers performance and dropping the ones that are
not working through a forced split-run --- If your
ad doesn't provide for the needs of my visitors, I
will refuse it or drop it.

Enough about me, I am happy with advertising on the
Internet and have seen wonderful results when the ads
are targeted to be in the best interest of the needs
of the visitor, not the advertiser. When like sites
work together (common clusters) I have seen an overall
traffic increase with a minor dilution of regular
visitors -- and overall happier visitors. The bottom
line is not what we think works or doesn't work, it is
what we have done and tested that matters.

As I prepare to step down from my soapbox, I ask you
to do three things (a) share what works for you,
(b) support and encourage others in testing, and
(c) stop whining about what you see in the media and
create news for yourself. I could have bored you
with specific details, exact strategies, and more
information -- I reserve that for my site members --
you get the picture. I may have been harsh, please
flame me direct if you so desire, don't bother the
group with anything other than solutions.

Respectfully submitted,

Justin
--
Save time with the Business Success Newsletter,
http://www.hittpansophism.com/newsletter/
(v) 301-904-3429 (f) 520-438-2941
(e) Justin.Hitt_at_hittpansophism.com



Received on Tue Jun 12 2001 - 12:00:48 CDT