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

From: Brian Shepherd <Brian.Shepherd_at_TechnologyReview.com>
Date: Mon 25 Jun 2001 12:28:22 -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.

TO WHICH MARCI DE VRIES <mdevries_at_turtlebackinteractive.com> REPLIED:

<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.

Hi Marci, I'll be happy to take this offline as well, but
since you decided to minimize the intention of the original
question in front of the entire list, I felt I needed to
respond in public as well. To answer your question, no,
nobody was kidding with the discussion, and quite frankly
I'm surprised that you feel that it is so obvious about
how media buyers make their buying decisions. Some use a
tool like @Plan, some use internal tools and some use
complex metrics that would make any math major nuts. That's
what makes each agency unique. You ask 20 agencies how they
go about making a buy, you'll get 20 methodologies. In
fact, I had numerous media buyers support my response to
Brandi's original question, so there were plenty of buyers
out there that didn't think the original posting was a
question made in jest at all. Now, to address some of your
points, and thanks for providing everyone with information
on how you make a buying decision. You mention that Yahoo's
reporting structure is robust, accurate and available in
real time. While that may be true, I know (and work) with
many agencies that do their own ad reporting and can get
this information without even looking at Yahoo's report.
For instance, Avenue A tracks their campaigns in-house.
Most of the large agencies have these capabilities, so
they don't rely on the site's reporting tool. As for the
good service on posting new creative, again, this can
easily be controlled by the agency, since they use a third
party tool to serve ads. I believe I read somewhere that
over 60% of online ads are served by an advertiser's third
party (or in-house) ad server. Your second point about
purchasing options is well taken and the major sites
can leverage this to their advantage. They charge high
cpms for targeted areas, then throw in inventory that
can't sell for like $.50 CPMs (read: Chat, message boards,
email banners, ROS, etc..) to bring the overall CPM down.
However, you would have trouble convincing me that your
cost per click (or cost per action, cost per inquiry or
whatever your final metric is) really goes down by
throwing in junky ROS inventory. This is the classic
(CBS saying) "ok, you want Survivor, you've got to run on
the 3am re-runs of The Cosby Show that nobody watches)
for a year. I do accept your third point about an
advertiser not wanting to risk going with some fly by
night content site. But, I don't think Brandi was
referring to that type of site. To bring it down a level,
we all know that the top 10 sites garner over 85% of online
ad revenue. Can we agree that under those 10 sites, there
are at least 250 other quality sites who create great
content, attract a desirable demographic and are sites
busting their butts to build their brands? The web is only
seven years old!

I agree that advertisers view online advertising as a
risk, but done correctly, it doesn't have to be a risk.
Testing sites that normally don't make the "cut" shouldn't
be dismissed. Thanks for contributing your thoughts Marci.
I'd be happy to take this offline as well.

Best,

********************************************

Brian K. Shepherd
Technology Review, Inc.
Director, Online Sales and Marketing
EMAIL: brian.shepherd_at_technologyreview.com
PHONE: 617-475-8030
http://www.technologyreview.com



Received on Mon Jun 25 2001 - 12:28:22 CDT