Re: Editorial on CPAs

From: Todd Kellner <todd.kellner_at_list-universe.com>
Date: Fri 22 Jun 2001 11:49:21 -0500

ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> WROTE:

>Phil, you're right. Trust is important. But what nobody
>wants to realize is that CPM by its very nature works to
>destroy trust. Think about it. Anyone who sells on CPM
>is motivated by body count, not targeting. It's to their
>advantage to get as many e-mail addresses and mass traffic
>as possible.
>
>Not exactly conducive to building a real relationship with
>someone who wants help selling their products and services.

TODD KELLNER <todd.kellner_at_list-universe.com> WROTE:

>What I fear is happening is that "fluff" publishers are
>grabbing at the CPA deals, which may be enough to keep
>them above water while quality publications (the ones
>with an engaged audience, niche domination and a high
>click-through rate) throw in the towel. After the
>inevitable rebound, how much valuable online real
>estate will remain?

TO WHICH ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> REPLIED:

>AFAIC, publishers have no responsibility to get people
>to buy anything. Their job is to make their readers aware
>of the ad. Note that I said "ad" and not the brand itself.

This is untrue. The greatest move for a publisher
(especially one in a specific niche) is to maintain
long-term relationships with advertisers. If the
advertiser does not feel that the test/initial run is
advantageous, he/she will not re-up, and the long-term
relationship will be terminated.

In a limited pool, such as those interested in online
advertising, one cannot burn through the handful of
successful advertisers in a short period of time. This
publication will fail, and most publishers are
well-aware of this fact. The ones who are unaware or
uncaring will not survive -- period.

Simply delivering impressions is not enough. By the way,
the average publisher *overruns* campaigns which perform
under snuff, not the other way around.

The problem with getting a highly-targeted publication
to accept CPA is...highly-targeted publications rightly
believe that they deserve CPM, and are unlikely to
accept your CPA offer. I've rarely seen targeted CPA
deals, because what difference does this make to the
advertiser paying simply for acquisitions? You get what
you pay for, cast the net, etc.

CPA is the method where one is motivated by body count.
If a publisher makes a poor placement move on a CPM campaign,
he/she will either need to do a "make good" or wave goodbye.
Why would qualification even come into question on a CPA
buy if you are merely interested in the acquisition?

>That's because as others have pointed out, there are a
>lot of really bad copywriters out there.

We offer to rewrite or create copy for both List-Universe
and Opt-Influence. The publications you're referring to
have editorial staffs -- ask their opinion on what kind
of copy would work with their unique audience. I'm sure
most would oblige.

>All a publisher
>can do is stick the ad in front of his readers. Period.

Here are some of the many things a publisher can do:

* Endorsements -- An actual recommendation from the editor.
* Sponsorships -- Sponsorship of a newsletter, columns, etc.,
   as opposed to a mere banner or text ad.
* Ad copy -- The aforementioned help with ad creative.
* Placement advice -- What spot (top, middle bottom), what
   vehicle (site banner, newsletter text ad) and what
   placement schedule would best benefit the advertiser?
* Overrunning impressions -- This is a very common practice.
   In an effort to deliver suitable results (and the repeat
   business), many CPM campaigns are overrun to meet
   expectations.

The conscientious publisher has already tested out most of
these options, and has priced them accordingly.

Thanks,

Todd Kellner
VP, Operations
http://Opt-Influence.com/
http://List-Universe.com/



Received on Fri Jun 22 2001 - 11:49:21 CDT