Comments on CPA vs. CPM and Trust

From: Terrell.Mitchell <Terrell.Mitchell_at_bigfoot.com>
Date: Tue 27 Nov 2001 19:59:36 -0500

I have comments on a couple threads but put them in
one message for convenience.

There is a lot of back and forth on the CPM vs.
CPA/CPC. Advertisers want CPC because they believe
the web's technology should allow for better
tracking to determine ROI. Publishers want CPM because
they believe the Advertiser derives benefit from
people seeing the ad, even if they don't click. Andy
brought up a good point about people create CPC ads
designed to raise awareness not generate clicks.

I think the nature of business is to do what gets them
to their goal. And they will use the rules/loopholes to
their advantage. It is a fact of life. There is a
reason for editorial/advertising walls in traditional
media. Advertisers don't like it and see this "new
media" as a chance to do something different.

But everyone seems to not be discussing one point. That
is the visitor/reader. Just because Advertisers believe
there habits can be tracked, it doesn't mean they want
it. A lot of tools and software is being created to give
more privacy back to readers. I turn off cookies, and
"invisible images" to prevent tracking. I have even
abandoned sites because they would not work properly
without cookies. I am sure there are others like myself.

As readers take more of their privacy back, the only
models available are CPM and sponsorship. People will
not provide the information necessary to do CPC and
CPM.


Now the Trust issue.

Andy Bourland visited a site and made comments about
something on a page being misleading. And that effects
the "trust" between publisher and visitor.

First, I am not sure how much trust there is on the
net. It takes a long time to create it and things
change often and rapidly on the net. Most places with
a high "trust" level probably built it offline and
brought their reputation with them. Some web only
places have created that trust, but I bet they are
rare.

Second, I have been in software development many years.
And have been involved in Human Interface study and
Usability studies. As a developer, I was always at
arm's distance for the reason that popped up here. The
person who creates something is the worst in the world
to test it or explain it. They have too much internal
knowledge.

When running a usability study, a guide usually sits
with the test subject to monitor and help "where
appropriate". This is a delicate position and the
wrong person can ruin any results you get. Developers
were the worst (myself included).

Whenever the subject had a problem or didn't "get"
something, it was the subject's fault. They were stupid
if they couldn't do this simple task. Obviously they
got the wrong subjects, our software/system/whatever
was designed for more "normal" users. In this case,
Phil made the classic mistake.

It is a sign of a lack of objectivity when you blame a
tester for "getting confused" or not "passing the
test". If they truly should not have been taking the
test, you should let them know up front. If you bring
an unqualified person to take the test, that is your
fault. If your website requires special knowledge, let
the visitor know up front. If it is designed for any
webmaster, then you should take all comments and study
them, not belittle the user.





Received on Tue Nov 27 2001 - 18:59:36 CST