RE: search vs. content (was RE: Interesting article)

From: Marci De Vries <mdevries_at_turtlebackinteractive.com>
Date: Tue 19 Jun 2001 11:43:41 -0500

BRANDI JASMINE <brandi_at_brandijasmine.com> WROTE:

>Okay -but why? Why are 100,000 page-views on the results
>page for a particular search term be worth any more than
>the same number of page-views on any one of those sites
>that might come up in that search? Is there any evidence
>that the click-throughs on a search for "cars" for example
>are higher on Yahoo than they would be on BobsAutos.com?
>Why can Yahoo charge what it does, when Bob can't
>even give his inventory away, and would be happy for a
>quarter of the price?

>Can anyone explain this for me in a way that makes sense?
>Or will this be more corporate Dilbertesque logic I can't
>understand?

TO WHICH BRIAN SHEPHERD <Brian.Shepherd_at_TechnologyReview.com> REPLIED:

>What a great point and well put Brandi! I don't know
>the answer, but my guess is that you'll hear a buyer
>say it's about getting in front of the user when they
>are in the mindset to go to a different place. For
>instance, is it better for Ford to be on a page when a
>user is looking for a site on "cars" and may be willing
>to go someplace that has information on cars. Or, is it
>better to be on Bob's Autos site where theoretically a
>user comes to the site to engage in Bob's content, and
>not necessarily go off to look at other sites. I don't
>agree with this mentality, I'm just guess this is what
>you'd hear a media buyer say. Does it make sense?
>Absolutely not.

As a professional media buyer, I simply have to ask whether
or not you are all kidding with this line of conversation.
Is there a general lack of knowledge as to media buyers'
criteria for site selection or do you all just need to
vent? This sounds like venting, and I am hesitant to even
broach the topic seriously. But on the off chance that
someone is genuinely interested in why Yahoo can charge
more than Bob's Autos, here is why:

1. Major sites like Yahoo provide a reporting structure
that is robust, accurate, customizable, and available in
real time on line. They also provide excellent service in
terms of posting new creative and weighting creatives
instantly for greater CTR. As online media buyers are held
to performance standards that exceed those of any other
media, the need for instant access to performance numbers
and optimization is crucial. In my experience, performance
reporting is the most difficult area to find adequate
performance from sites.
2. Major sites give a greater variety of purchasing options.
Buyers can combine ROS buys with content-specific buys to
decrease the overall CPM while strategizing a decent CTR.
3. Clients of the level that would be hiring a media buyer
for their online strategy would not want to give their
brand a black eye by advertising on a no-name site that
may or may not have quality content every single day. Like
it or not, when advertising online, the brand of the site
and the brand of the advertiser bleed together, especially
when the advertiser level is vastly different from the site
level. If Bob's Autos wants major advertisers, then it needs
to build a quality brand for itself that is recognizable
through its GUI, and reputation in the industry.

To summarize, let me just remind you all that clients still
consider advertising online as a financial risk, not a
standard marketing strategy. They pour over the numbers one
by one, measuring not only CTR, CPM, but also ultimate cost
per customer and they have multiple equations for measuring
ROI. Sites need to deliver. Sites need to be approved by
clients who are advertising on network TV and major
magazines---who are as interested in the brand of the media
they are advertising in as the results of the campaign.

If anyone has questions about this post, please feel free to
contact me offline. I would be happy to discuss.

Thank you.
Marci De Vries
Sr. Media Buyer
Turtleback Interactive
ph. 410 727 7392
fax. 410 727 4416
mdevries_at_turtlebackinteractive.com
204 East Cross
Baltimore, MD 21230



Received on Tue Jun 19 2001 - 11:43:41 CDT