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

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Tue 17 Jul 2001 10:40:37 -0500

JANET ATTARD <attard_at_businessknowhow.com> WROTE:

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

TO WHICH JOHN GASKILL REPLIED:

>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.

AND JANET ATTARD ANSWERED:

>I don't think we're talking about the same thing here.
>We don't put business opportunity ads and things like
>that on our Business Know-How site, but that's not
>what I mean. What I mean are ads - even from major
>companies - that are poorly thought out. Puff pieces
>rather than things that extend real offers or imply
>real benefits, for instance, or, as I stated before,
>"special offers" that draw a big yawn because they
>aren't "special" at all. Again, I'm talking about
>things major corporations do.

As the publisher, you have no control over what the
advertiser decides to do before an insertion order
is placed on your doorstep UNLESS your media kit is
specific in talking about the benefits you offer
advertisers because you care. To reinforce that
message you MUST stand by your policies or they become
meaningless. And the policies you have must be
sensible, i.e., they exist for your benefit, the
benefit of your audience and the benefit of your
advertisers.

Big corporations are used to being 800 lb. gorillas
not only because people let them, but because people
invite the treatment by saying they cannot tell the
800 lb. gorilla to, "find another chair!" because he
might go somewhere else and break the furniture.
While some people might think it's an honor to have
their furniture broken... I believe otherwise. The
word "No" is your elephant gun.

JOHN GASKILL ALSO WROTE:

>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.

TO WHICH JANET ATTARD ALSO REPLIED:

>That's a nice theory, and huge sites can probably just
>say no, but small sites - say like ours with a couple
>hundred thousand page views a month, generally don't
>have that kind of clout. Sure they can say no if the
>tags com in late, or something is pushed off schedule,
>but if they do, how many more times is the media buyer
>going to contact them?
--------

Small sites can say no just as easily as large sites
say no. The reason for saying no is to protect your
publication and its good reputation.

I'm sure many media buyers are used to hearing no because
the rate offered is too low. I doubt if many media
buyers talk shop about those sites who decline their
advertising for applicability policies or are told
CPA deals are not accepted for ads without strong calls
to action. Why give publishers any ideas?

You have to be out there hustling new advertisers all
the time. If you aren't, you can't say no because you
have no alternate revenue stream and few prospects for
an alternate revenue stream.

Just remember that advertisers did not put your site
in the position it is in. Your actions did. How you
react to the market determines whether your site survives.
Unless your actions are proactive and help you create a
market of your own, you will always be struggling to
deal with the desires of others.

Your feelings about the situation do not change it. Only
actions on your part can change the situation, and
hopefully, your ability to profit from it.

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 - 10:40:37 CDT