Jim Sterne <jsterne_at_targeting.com> wrote:
> Whoops - I meant bannerS - plural. We agree about building
> interest. The advertiser would end up looking like the only
> sponsor for the whole site (during that visit) and that's
> great for branding.
>
> Two and a half qualms:
>
> 1) If the visitor actually remembers that they saw something
> about branding advertised at ww.andybourland.com and go
> *back*, during the next session all they see is Jim Sterne
> banners and they don't understand why they don't see that
> obnoxious head bobbing around.
The obnoxious head bobbing around would be Frankel, not me, but
in any case...
I'm thinking the tools we use for impression based campaigns
won't be as effective as what we might use for sessions.
What would you think about the template around the content
being branded? There could be any number and/or types of ad
units integrated into the design as a user goes through the
session.
I'm still rassling with this myself, but think we need to
evolve creative in the right direction for it to work.
>
> 2a) If Fastclick is selling this feature across a network,
> then the banners follow me from site to site and that's
> just plain spooky.
I don't know the details of the FastClick approach, and don't
know how they would split revenues amongst the publishers for
a single session that went through various sites. What if I
went to a fastclick network site, then to something else,
then back to another different fastclick network site? Is that
two sessions?
We need to hear from them on this. I salute them for having the
guts to get out there and try to make it work.
>
> 2b) The normal surfer won't even experience that because
> they seldom visit a series of sites server from the
> save network. So where's the value in that?
I think it's a great value for individual publishers, but have
real concerns about how it would work on a network.
Andy
=====
Andrew R. Bourland
... Stay tuned!
Received on Fri Dec 07 2001 - 11:33:25 CST
