Re: CPA vs. CPM the issue?

From: Todd Kellner <todd.kellner_at_list-universe.com>
Date: Mon 23 Jul 2001 10:46:18 -0500

IVAN WELTMAN <ivan_at_tudogs.com> WROTE:

>Sorry to say, Rob, but you are splitting hairs, and
>unsupported claims of what costs businesses billions of
>bucks don't help your cause. This is not the forum for a
>debate on branding, but your statement that banners don't
>brand anything simply cannot go unchallenged, because you
>are dead wrong. In some ways the banner may be compared to
>the billboard. An image and a headline, that conventional
>wisdom says should be no more than seven words. Yet the
>billboard can be an integral part of a branding campaign,
>as can the banner, particularly if used to reinforce a
>positioning. Just think of the brands and images evoked
>over the years by a few words:

>Guiness is good for you.
>Where's the beef?
>Don't forget the fruit gums Mum.
>Try it, you'll like it.
>We are driven.
>99 and 99/100 percent pure.
>Sssss... You know Who.
>We try harder.

>The wide reach and high frequency opportunities offered
>by online banners, at low cost, should make an online
>banner program an important element in many media
>strategies, particularly for brand maintenance. Let's
>not sell the banner short.



IAB, Doubleclick, MSN, and CNET released individual
studies regarding online branding, and came to similar
conclusions:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/010718/2388.html

Unless one is into semantics over substance, I guess I
can't see a valid argument refuting their claims. If
billboards and product placements "brand" offline,
banners "brand" online. If we change the definition
online, then we need to go back and redefine the
term across the board.

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



Received on Mon Jul 23 2001 - 10:46:18 CDT