Re: What is fair? Clicks or 'Conversion'

From: Phil Tanny <phil_at_philtanny.com>
Date: Mon 22 Oct 2001 16:28:36 -0500

Fred Showker said:

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

In a market where there are more sellers than buyers
the online advertising industry is doing what it has to
do to survive. The only reason anyone is selling
CPA is because they have to, if they want to eat.

We can all be mad at advertisers about this if
that makes us feel better of course. But advertisers
didn't create the oversupply, publishers in their
many millions did.

Advertisers are doing EXACTLY what publishers
do in an up market, making the best deal for their
company they can.

>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???

All of our jobs are whatever our customers, as a
group, say they are. The NYT is in a position to
sell CPM. Good for them! But it has nothing
to do with fairness, or some abstract definition
of what their job is.

>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?

The first person who couldn't sell out their CPM
inventory.

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

If you ARE getting paid for it, that's great. You don't
have a problem and your post is commendable
for the concern it shows for others.

>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.

Who exactly is "penalizing" the site? Don't we all have
the choice to accept or reject any term or price?

>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.

Advertisers have learned from experience that buying
online advertising is a slippery business indeed and
they are drawn to in house tracked CPA deals because
they can then avoid getting the slippery stuff on their shoes.

Ever try to buy pop ups via CPM, only to find out later the
network allows their publishers to pop up 3 or 4
other windows over yours?

>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?

They shouldn't unless they have to. Many have to
because it's a down market and, more importantly
in my view, they lack the credibility to sell CPM
effectively.

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

Depends on whether the buyer has branding as
part of his/her strategy. Branding doesn't really
help me a bit so I'd rather not pay a nickel for it.

>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.

Credibility, credibility and credibility. And enough financial
reserves so you can keep your cool when the market
swings south.

Sincerely,
Phil

Phil Tanny, phil_at_philtanny.com
http://subscription-service.com






Received on Mon Oct 22 2001 - 16:28:36 CDT