Re: CPM isn't dead, it's just sick

From: Ivan Weltman <ivan_at_tudogs.com>
Date: Tue 13 Nov 2001 20:59:57 -0500

KIM O'CONNOR <koconnor_at_planetoutpartners.com> WROTE:

>Right on Jim. I certainly cannot blame advertisers
>wanting to use websites as their 'commission only'
>sales force. However, we as publishers need to
>stand firm and be treated as any other media outlet
>is treated when offering advertising space or time.
>Unless we want to go broke that is.

The real situation with CPA is that commission is only
paid on some of the sales, however honest the
advertiser may be. If a sale is not effected on
the first click-thru the advertiser relies on a cookie
to allocate commission - but more than 20% of users'
browsers are set to reject cookies. Even more damaging
to the publisher is the finding in the
Engage/DoubleClick/IAB survey that only 38% of users
who visit an advertisers Web site do so within 30
minutes of seeing the banner. The others find their way
to the site without clicking thru - and these, of
course, are much more likely to be buyers.

The probability is that, for most advertisers, around
two-thirds of short term sales originating from a
publisher cannot be credited to that publisher; and,
of course, there is no credit at all for the contribution
to brand building and long term sales.

This does not mean that CPA is not viable. A likely
solution is for the advertiser to pay 100% of gross
profit on sales, knowing that most of the advertiser
benefit is unmeasurable. For those selling software,
this is effectively the sale price; for those selling
hardware the sale price less the cost of the merchandise.
With automation, admin costs of an affiliate
program are minimal. We would then, finally, have a
win/win situation for both parties on most affiliate
deals.





Received on Tue Nov 13 2001 - 19:59:57 CST