Re: Do publishers and networks want money?

From: Adam Boettiger <adam.boettiger_at_i-advertising.com>
Date: Thu 31 Jan 2002 08:19:36 -0500

Mark Hopkins wrote:

> Let's make one thing absolutely clear:- This was a test.
> Regardless of my own personal position; I decided to
> create a small business product, targeted to a niche
> market, and see if it would go anywhere with CPM
> marketing.
>
> Based on these factors, and the HUGE number of possible
> sites that clamour for attention. A $10 initial test on
> a site that seems targeted is reasonable.

Actually a $10 test anywhere is far from reasonable, Mark.

As Janet pointed out, $10 is not enough to test anything
and get results that would be indicative of what you might
have done with a larger buy. A "test" should consist of
at least 100,000 impressions. You tested 1,000. That's my
first point - that you're making assumptions and judgements
based on too small of a sample. But you're right - sample
size is your choice. If you want to base marketing
decisions on a tiny sample that is unrepresentative of
reality, then that is certainly your right. If you want
to bang your head against the wall trying to get sites to
return your phone calls to place a $10 test, that is your
own time and you can spend it as you wish.

The fact that you spent $10 on a test also tells us that
your test certainly did not run on any site that provides
a quality audience. Minimum buys on most sites are $1,000
- $2,000, and for good reason. Anything less than
that is just not worth their time. The "I will spend more
if my $10 test works out" just does not fly in this
industry. Experienced publishers know better. They're not
naive.

The only folks I know of who are willing to pay the
advertiser to run a test - and that's exactly what you are
looking for, a publisher to PAY you to run your own test on
their site (time to close deal and manage campaign > ROI) -
are those who still call their sites "home pages" and talk
about site traffic in terms of "HITS" (How Idiots Track
Success).

The fact remains that you ran too small of a test and did
so to a poor quality audience. You're setting yourself up
for failure. Don't make blanket assumptions about an entire
buying model or industry based on your inability to conduct
a proper test or media buy. That's illogical. It would be
like me running a classified ad in one city for one day and
then pronouncing that the classified ad model is a failure.

> That doesn't
> mean that's all that would be spent. It's certainly
> enough to know if a site's worth more.

No, it's not.

> The conclusion: Go CPA. No, not a conscious decision to
> stuff publishers. Just the inevitable based on the
> alternative.

> By all means prove me wrong. I'd love there to be a
> reasonable way to target and test an offer by CPM.

You're looking for something that doesn't exist at the
level of money you are spending on tests. I agree with you.
You yourself need to go CPA. There is no doubt in my mind.
You'll save yourself a lot of time and headaches. Please
come back and tell us how many sites are willing to take
your $10 test on a CPA basis. I'd be interested in finding
out...

It's not a question of whether publishers and networks want
money. It's a question of whether or not your offer is
going to be enough to at least cover their minimum overhead
in doing the paperwork, closing the deal and managing the
campaign/test. If what you are offering doesn't even cause
them to break even in that area, are you honestly telling
us that you can't understand why no one is returning your
phone calls? You're not giving them any reason to talk to
you because you're not being realistic.

AB
--
Adam Boettiger, Founder
I-Advertising - http://www.i-advertising.com/
Phone: (503) 925-8434 - Email: adam.boettiger_at_i-advertising.com
Internet advertising sales & media planning





Received on Thu Jan 31 2002 - 07:19:36 CST