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

From: John Gaskill <jg_at_info-central-usa.com>
Date: Sun 25 Nov 2001 09:45:45 -0500

JIM STERNE <jsterne_at_targeting.com> WROTE:

>I WROTE:
>
>>>Houston - we have identified the problem and it is
>>>semantic. Either you're selling advertising space, or
>>>you're selling leads.
>
>ROB FRANKEL <Rob_at_RobFrankel.com> WROTE:
>
>>No, it's not. If you have a new medium, you may have
>>new definitions to apply to that new medium. If, on
>>the other hand, you're simply trying to force old
>>media definitions on to that new medium, I can see
>>where you'd have a fit problem. I don't, which is
>>why it works for me and mine.
>
>Rob, Rob, Rob, Rob.
>"It's a new paradigm" went out with the Sock Puppet.
>The point of discussion is to define our terms. Throwing
>the dictionary into the shredder is not going to help
>us understand what you mean.

Jim, Jim, Jim, Jim,

There is no paradigm here.

Advertising is advertising. Whether the advertiser
uses advertising space to generate images or leads
is their call. Both work, one works faster.

A publisher has a choice. Be a publisher or
be a retailer. There is a difference after all.
The publisher who accepts ads that generate
leads, and gets paid for the leads (not the space
used) should know in advance what it takes to
make ads work -- and what it takes to get paid.

Smart publishers know that people don't go to
department stores to read the news.

Smart retailers know that people don't rely on
them for news.

Makes sense to me...

John Gaskill
jg_at_Info-Central-USA.com
http://Info-Central-USA.com





Received on Sun Nov 25 2001 - 08:45:45 CST