RON SHERIDAN <ron_at_ronsheridan.com> WROTE:
>>The whole space is crumbling along due in large measure
>>to the inability of the Portals to earn adequate CPM rates
>>on their banner inventory, and the fact that even when they
>>do CPC or CPA deals they don't convert at a high enough
>>frequency to be profitable.
TO WHICH ROB FRANKEL <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com> REPLIED:
>I'm telling ya, it won't work until people abandon CPM as
>an effective ad model for the web. CPM works great in
>traditional, offline, mass media where the populace has
>no choice.
>On the web, quality traffic is where it's at, not quantity.
>When people have billions of choices at their fingertips,
>they go where THEY want to go, not where advertisers pray
>for them to go.
Rob Frankel is wrong. CPM is not the traditional
offline measurement. Indeed the offline situation is
the very reverse of the online CPM method.
Online CPM (Cost per Thousand) is based on number of
impressions. Offline CPM is based on number of readers.
For example, take a print publication that averages 3
readers per copy. For each 1000 impressions there are
3000 readers - and thus 3000 opportunities to be seen
by a unique individual. Now take a Web site with an
average of three page views per visitor. With cache
busting the impressions measured will be three per
unique visitor. Thus for each 1000 impressions measured
there are only 333 unique individuals.
Where I do agree is the absurdity of a CPM measure based
on impressions. It should be based on unique individuals
with an opportunity to see the advertisement in a fixed
period of time, say 24 hours.
Ivan Weltman
http://www.tudogs.com
Received on Wed Oct 17 2001 - 17:26:25 CDT
