Re: What about the banner? (or rather Frankel)

From: Ivan Weltman <ivan_at_tudogs.com>
Date: Tue 18 Dec 2001 19:59:01 -0500

David Hauslaib <dave_at_bmedia.org> wrote

>>Among different ways to explain methods of advertising, there
>>is the hard sell and the soft sell. If you can remember way
>>back (or read about it), Rosser Reeves became "Prince of the
>>Hard Sell" by finding the key element of a product or brand
>>and repeating it -- a lot, so much it annoyed consumers


Rosser Reeves' book is called "Reality in Advertising", a little
book packed with powerful ideas. He originated the notion of USP
(Unique Selling Proposition). This book was written more than 50
years ago. He was the driving force behind Ted Bates Advertising.

Ivan Weltman,
http://www.tudogs.com
ivan_at_tudogs.com






From nobody
From arun_natarajan_at_vsnl.com
Return-Path: <arun_natarajan_at_vsnl.com>
Received: from chn3.vsnl.net.in ([202.54.6.190]) by maggie.tenagra.com with SMTP (Lyris List Manager WIN32 version 4.0); Tue 18 Dec 2001 21:26:57 -0500
Received: by chn3.vsnl.net.in (Postfix, from userid 60001)
        id 8AF8E7D16; Wed 19 Dec 2001 09:11:14 +0530 (IST)
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 4.102 (Entity 4.114)
X-Mailer: VSNL, Web based email
From: Arun Natarajan <arun_natarajan_at_vsnl.com>
To: online-ads_at_o-a.com
Subject: Measuring the Branding Impact of Online Ads
X-Sender-Ip: 202.71.145.114
Cc:
Message-Id: <20011219034114.8AF8E7D16_at_chn3.vsnl.net.in>
Date: Wed 19 Dec 2001 08:27:14 -0500

"Ivan Weltman" <ivan_at_tudogs.com> wrote:

>To Rob online advertising is useful only as a direct
>selling medium, to be measured and paid for by
>prospects (CTR) or concluded sales (CPA). To me the
>possible roles of online advertising in marketing
>communications are broader and deeper than can be
>measured by CTR or CPA. Rob acknowledges that online
>advertising can increase awareness, but he doesn't
>rate awareness as very useful.


It seems that Measurability is a very important factor
in this issue: while click-thrus are easy and objectively
measurable, there's no easy--and universally acceptable--
way for advertisers to measure the branding impact of
online ads. As a result, advertisers tend to rely on
click-thrus to evaluate effectiveness of all online
advertising.

Though most of us acknowledge that this situation is not
v.desirable--for publishers, at least ;-)--the problem so
far, has been the TINA ("There Is No Alternative") factor...

I recently came across two firms proposing different
approaches to solving this problem: one from research
firm, Jupiter Media Metrix and another by AdIndex (a
division of Dynamic Logic)

* The JMM Approach

The relevant JMM report is titled "Is the CPM Model Dead?:
Making Pay-for-Performance a Sustainable Media Buying
Model for Advertisers and Publishers". I'm extracting
a couple of paras from the report beloew to highlight
their proposed "hybrid CPM-CPA model" solution

<----------Beginning of JMM Report extract-------->

It is the growth in hybrid models that will likely form
the foundation of future growth in pay-for-performance
advertising. Under this model, advertisers would still
pay a fixed cost-per directly trackable action, but would
also pay a baseline CPM that covers the branding
performance driven by publisher inventory that is not
directly trackable, which is approximately 25 percent to
35 percent of the total directly trackable ROI.

If, in this example, advertisers paid $0.25 per click
and visit, and received a total of 14,000 directly
trackable clicks/visits, they would pay the publisher
$3,500. If publishers deliver four million impressions
to get those 14,000 clicks/visits, the effective CPM
would equal approximately $0.09. Since the branding
value of these impressions adds at least 25 percent to
35 percent, the baseline CPM paid in the hybrid deal
would equal 25 percent to 35 percent of the effective

CPM; in this instance, $0.03 to $0.04 CPM for four
million impressions. Thus, the $3,500 would cover the
fixed performance cost, and the CPM payment to cover
branding performance would equal $120 to $160; for a
total advertiser cost for this buy of $3,620 to
$3,660. When structured as a traditional "cost per
click" buy that pays only on a fixed number of
directly observed clicks, the advertiser cost for the
buy would have only been $2,500.

<----------end of extract-------->


* The AdIndex Approach

According to the site (www.adindexnetwork.com), AdIndex
is a tool that "aims to provide attitudinal metrics to
online media campaigns and help advertisers measure the
impact of ALL their impressions - not just those that
were clicked".

AdIndex uses online surveys to gather data from visitors
to the participating web sites. Visitors are randomly
intercepted to take a brief survey and, upon their
consent are asked a series of questions designed to
measure the communications impact of a campaign. The
research is done concurrently with the buy, and the
metrics, which are intended to accompany click-through
rate, are available real-time.

You can view a sample survey on the site
http://www.adindexnetwork.com/demo/index.html to form an
opinion on the effectiveness of this approach.

---------------

Would love to hear thoughts from group members about these
approaches to measure branding impact.

My feeling is that there's no one 100% fool-proof way to
measure branding, but the industry would do well to come
up with close proxies....

Arun Natarajan

Co-Founder, FavorPoints Tech

www.FriendlyGesture.com




Received on Tue Dec 18 2001 - 18:59:01 CST