RE: What is fair? Clicks or 'Conversion'

From: Fred Showker <DTGNews_at_aol.com>
Date: Thu 18 Oct 2001 16:30:39 -0500

Kevin Frasier raised a question that has
puzzled me for some time when he asked:

KEVIN FRAZIER <kfrazier_at_adace.com> WROTE:

> What is fair? - how many clicks does it take to have a
> successful campaign? Success is being measured on the conversion
> at the end of the day. One site could send 100,000 clicks
> but only get .01% to convert, and other sites may only get
> 20,000 clicks but may have 1% to 4% of those clicks convert
> in to sales. Is it fair for both sites to be paid on a .25
> cent cost per click?
> My math says no.

Is this a valid question for the Ad industry?
My math says "Are you crazy???"

Is the online advertising industry doing itself a grave
injustice in "promising" advertisers conversion to sales.

Consider the New York Times.
How many here have advertised in the New York Times?

Their ad fees are certainly based on subscription base.
However, once they've "served" the ad in the issue of the paper,
isn't their job done???

I've never seen a rate card from any media that would
even mention converting pairs of eyes to sales...
much less guaranteeing it.

Actually it's rather ludicrous when you think about it.

   "If you don't sell, you don't have to pay!"

Can you point me to web site advertising with this promise?
I'll contract a LOT of advertising space. I'll take all
the inventory you've got.

In the same respect, should a web site be penalized if after
delivering lots of clicks, the sales are still very low?

It would seem to me that that's the fault of the advertisers'
banners, arrival scene, or product offer. NOT the fault of
the web site that provided the reader.

Why has the online advertising industry trained the advertiser
that they needn't pay if they don't get actual action from
the viewers? Who came up with that idea?

So, Mr. Frasier then asserts that ...

> This is where networks are missing the boat. They are selling
> across many sites at a flat .25 per click rate, and paying
> more to sites that deliver less.
> Anyone have any thoughts on how this can be fixed?
> Is their a way to pay the sites more that deliver the real results?
> How can this be tracked. Does the advertiser need to be involved
> in sharing the responsibility? Your thoughts?

Hmmmmmm, let's say we DID "fix" that. . .

  "Dear Mr. Advertiser,
   If the conversion rates in the New York Times aren't as
   good as in your local paper, we'll discount the space
   to the same rate of $9.00 per column inch."

In my humble opinion, my site delivers pairs of eye to the
advertisers' banner. That's what I'm getting paid for.

If that's not converted to sales it's NOT my fault.

I see a lot of loser products being advertised in ad banners;
products that no one in their right mind would ever click on.
Why penalize the site that runs the ad in good faith if
no one wants to click on or purchase the loser product.

    "Dear Mr. Advertiser, we're sorry your product is
     such a loser that only 11 people out of 276,897
     views actually wanted to click on your sucking
     banner. You only have to pay $ 2.75.

Then there's the "Pay as they Read" concept...

Did anyone even question the intelligence of the guy
who came up with this advertising model???

   "Dear Comdex, enclosed is payment for your exhibit
    space invoice. Based on the 79 sales we made, I
    remit $343.00."

Or Newsweek, or TIME magazines...

    "Mr. Showker, of our 3 million subscribers, 2,454
     clicked on your ad in last week's edition.
     Please remit $250."

LOL. Imagine that!
Wonder what Ted Bates is thinking.

Should there even be magazine and newspaper ads at all?

What advertiser in his right mind pays $3,000,000 for a
30-second ad during the Super Bowl without a single
view-through (click-through?) to justify it???

   "Dear Porshe, we have detected 546 sales as a
    direct results of your Super Bowl ad:
    Please remit: $237,745.45"

How to shoot yourself in the foot:

#1 Promise that X number of people will see the banner,
#2 Go to great expense to build expensive and bandwidth
   sucking automated infrastructure so you can PROVE exactly
   how few clicks to bill for.

Now we're asked to bill based on how many people click,
then actually buy? Right? Is that what I'm hearing

Advertisers have been taught to believe that if they don't
have direct results from a banner on a web site, then
there must be something wrong with the web site.

The online ad industry has fueled the fire by making more
and more promises and 'giving' the store away just to
make sales. Should they prostitute themselves like this?

   "Dear Billboard Company, since only 6 of the 535,378
    drive-bys bought a new Ford as a direct result of
    our September billboard campaign, I'm attaching
    payment of $6."

You wouldn't be able to contract a billboard if your
life depended on it.

Since the industry has given them the store -- by providing
the expectation of 'proof' through 'clicks' -- the notion of
identity advertising and impressions has gone to hell
in a hand bag.

If we're going to get the OA discussions back on track, as
Mr. Frasier (and myself, like many others) would like us to,
then fine. Let's do.

The fact that a reader "sees" the ad has value even if
the reader doesn't click on it.

Now advertisers won't be buying space because it
"Can't give any proof that I'm getting sales off it."

    "Mr. Showker, of our 3 million subscribers, 2,454
     clicked on your ad in last week's edition and a
     total of 3 bought product.
     Please remit $3 "

It's not only ridiculous, it's insane. The model won't
add up.

You charge 25 cents for a click, right?
What if the advertiser gets only ONE click this month,
but sells a $20,000 car off the click.
Are you only going to bill 25 cents???

Thousands of web sites are doing that right now.

My question is where to find, and how to persuade advertisers
to pay a reasonable rate for an honest ad in a demographically
correct web site to gain an honest number of impressions.

Seems simple doesn't it?

:-)

Fred Showker, Director
Design & Publishing Publications Group



Received on Thu Oct 18 2001 - 16:30:39 CDT