Re: CPM isn't dead, it's just sick (was More suggestions...)

From: Rob Frankel <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com>
Date: Mon 12 Nov 2001 14:26:14 -0500

ROB FRANKEL <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com> WROTE:

>No, your job USED to be the opportunity to see. The bottom
>line is, well, the bottom line. Nobody in business pays
>simply for the opportunity to be seen anymore.

TO WHICH MIKE PEPPER REPLIED:

> Your point is taken, but you're disallowing an equally
>valid point on the opposite side. That is, that there are
>costs and profits that must be covered on that side as
>well. CPC buyers (generally) don't come close to
>covering that consideration.

Whoa, cowboy, I'm not ruling anything out. I'm just saying
that since the advertisers pay the piper, you can tout
any other system you like, but they're going to want to
see performance. Why not just give them that?

It's a no lose proposition:

If you're really a fan of CPM, give them a deal: a hybrid
buy of BOTH CPA and CPM. Come down on the CPM price and go
up on the CPA.

>Now look; if you on the advertiser side want us on the
>publisher side to take CPC seriously, then you have to play
>it seriously on your side. Your challenges are not going to
>make it and they will only come across as rants unless and
>until you include a reasonable view of the cost/profit basis
>on ~both~ sides of the equation.

That depends on how you build your operation. If you're
built for CPM, yeah, you're going to hate CPA. But if you're
built for CPA, you have nothing to worry about.


--
Rob Frankel, "Yes, I really do turn users into
 evangelists for your brand."
Spend Nov. 16 & 17 in Los Angeles with me putting YOUR
 brand on steroids:
Limited seating. Great people. Bottom line results. COME ON!!
Register NOW at http://www.RobFrankel.com/seminar.html



Received on Mon Nov 12 2001 - 13:26:14 CST