Re: CPA vs. CPM the issue? "The Meat"

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Tue 17 Jul 2001 10:30:20 -0500

JOHN GASKILL <jg_at_info-central-usa.com> WROTE:

>No physical magazine I have encountered ever had a
>single ad on the page which "refreshed" after thirty
>seconds and became a different ad. No printed,
>physical magazine I have seen had full motion video
>ads or ads which "jumped" across the copy I was trying
>to read on that page.

>Web sites are not magazines or newspapers.

TO WHICH JANET ATTARD <attard_at_businessknowhow.com> REPLIED:

>And not all web sites are alike. Not all web sites
>HAVE ads that refresh every thirty seconds or run videos.

Understood! That is part of what I am saying.
What one web site offers is most likely
an individual thing, serving some kind of niche.
Accordingly, it has to be sold individually and
priced individually.

JOHN GASKILL ALSO WROTE:

>Magazines and newspapers offer demographics and
>audited circulation figures. Do you provide a copy of your
>site log to all advertisers for the period they advertise?

AND JANET ATTARD REPLIED FURTHER:

>We do not provide access to our site logs to
>advertisers. We consider some of the information in
>the logs to be trade secrets (it's no one's business
>other than ours which article in our management section
>gets the most page views, for instance.) However, we
>do provide access to the ad tracking program that so
>the advertiser can see for themselves on a day by
>day basis if they want, which of their ads got how
>many impressions. They can also access click detail
>to check on IP numbers, if they want.

All I can suggest in this instance is that you
learn from the physical world models.

Newspapers and magazines have long charged for prime
positions, whether they are Inside Front Cover, Back
Cover or Page Three or Five. These positions command
HUGE PREMIUMS over where the publisher wants to put
you. It is quite possible that an advertiser is
willing to pay a web publisher a huge premium over
what you have been getting for the prime real estate
that serves them best.

What you consider proprietary may in fact be
proprietary when it comes to dealing with competitive
web site operators, but may have no interest to
advertisers (assuming you deal directly with them,
bypassing network resellers) other than documenting
that you have a page or pages for which HUGE PREMIUMS
are justified.



JANET WROTE:
>Frankly, I think web publishers are often penalized
>for really bad ads.

The only protection a publisher has against running
bad ads is not running them at all. The payoffs from
doing this are real.

Every physical world publication I have dealt with
reserves the right to refuse ads. There is no reason
you shouldn't do the same thing.

JANET HAD PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN:
>In direct mail, any company that stays in business will
>test one thing at a time to find out what works. You can't
>test "one thing" at a time on the web when you have an ad
>agency place an ad on a network of differnet sites. In
>fact, you can't test anything, IMHO, since there are too
>many variables.. everything from slight - or big -
>differences in the audience to how long the page takes to
>load, to whether the color of the ad is so bland or so
>similar to any page it shows up on that it just fades
>into the background.

It is also possible that agencies and many advertisers
ARE testing to find out WHAT DOES NOT WORK at this time,
in order to refine what does work when rates ultimately
rise higher.

<SNIP>

JANET ALSO WROTE:

>.... advertisers would
>save money and get better results if they worked more
>closely with publishers. Web site publishers often
>have more interaction with their subscribers and visitors
>than a magazine has with its readers.

It is unlikely that advertisers will seek out a publisher
when an ad buyer can go to a network and make a
deal for X impressions in fifteen minutes.

At this time, the ball appears to be in the publisher's
court. I suggest that publishers are the ones who
should be going to advertisers now, as appalling
as the thought might be.

JOHN GASKILL HAD WRITTEN:

>It seems more
>equitable to me in the short and long run that publishers
>interested in getting more for their advertising space have
>to understand what they are selling, find the right buyers
>and make a package that works for both parties. If that
>requires learning new things on the publisher's part, so
>be it.

AND JANET ATTARD REPLIED:

>Advertisers and their agencies- as much, or maybe
>more than publishers - need to understand what they
>are selling and how it can best be sold on the web.
>But in either case, just sending out ad tags an half day
>before a campaign will start, and hoping they'll get
>up and work right and attract lots of click throughs -
>when they may load so slowly going through third party
>ad servers that reader is long gone before the banner
>image even shows up, isn't going to do either advertiser
>or publisher any good.

If the publisher is interested in helping the advertiser
have a good response and successful campaign, the
publisher has to have editorial and advertising policies
which encourage advance planning and preparation. Accepting
ads and tags a half day prior to publication seems
contrary to those goals.

Again, some times the publisher has to say, "No!"

Publishers should require advertisers in advance
to declare the goals of the ads they plan to run.
If branding ads are to be run, a CPM is paid, like it
or not. If offer ads are to be run, CPA may be
appropriate. In either case, the publisher must
be willing to decline ads which do not fit the
category.

You may aggravate a few advertisers, but those who
want to be on your site will learn to abide by the
rules. Those just looking for a place to lay off ads
at the lowest possible rate will be forced to go
elsewhere, but the responsibility for their failure
(if that is what results) to achieve stated campaign
goals cannot be placed on your publication for ads
you did not run.

Regards all,

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
Want more advertising for your site?
http://Info-Central-USA.com/site-ads.htm



Received on Tue Jul 17 2001 - 10:30:20 CDT