RE: Higher Accountability

From: Terrell Mitchell <Terrell.Mitchell_at_bigfoot.com>
Date: Fri 03 Aug 2001 15:55:58 -0500

ROB FRANKEL <rob_at_robfrankel.com> WROTE:

>For some reason, because the web reaches so many
>people, marketing hacks still think this must be just
>another mass medium. They can't figure out that this is
>a new breed of media for the masses, with its own
>traits and personality.>

>It ain't TV. It ain't radio. It ain't direct mail.

>It's the web. And no mater how many times you mix the
>goop, it's different from its other media siblings.
>If you want the whole story, it's the first chapter
>of my book.

I agree, TV isn't radio. But they charge the same way.
Radio isn't print, but they charge the same way.

All the other media charge for "exposing" their
viewers/readers/listeners to the ad, not for the
people responding to the ad. That is based on audited
viewership or circulation. Direct mail charges by the
name! And targeted names cost more.

That is the crux of this debate. Why should the web
media be paid only if the viewer "responds" to the ad,
not for "exposing" them to the ad?

I think that buyers/sellers should negotiate whatever
works for them. But I do find it interesting there are
so many "publishers" that are bowing down. They should be
fighting this. By agreeing to be held to a higher
standard, I think they are setting themselves up to fail
in a lot of cases. You cannot deliver something that is
not under your control consistently.

If as a publisher, you put the ad in front of qualified
people, that is what you are saying you can do. No more,
no less. You cannot make people click on it. You cannot
force them to make a buying decision at that instance.
The ad is supposed to do that.

Now maybe people want too much money for banner ads.
Their effectiveness has probably been compromised by
over-exposure. People have learned to tune them out.
But there are other formats.

Terrell Mitchell



Received on Fri Aug 03 2001 - 15:55:58 CDT