Re: Comments on various posts

From: Mark Hopkins <mark.hopkins_at_powerpackedads.com>
Date: Mon 04 Feb 2002 10:29:37 -0500

"Pesach Lattin" <info_at_adspyre.com> wrote :-

> For the gentleman who wanted to spend $10 to test a
>campaign: I hate to point this out, but $10 doesn't test
>a campaign. ...

IT NEVER WAS A $10 CAMPAIGN Arghhh!!!

Let's go over this one last time...

(please ignore exact numbers, it's the principle I'm after)

Big business (BB) wants to test a creative & offer and
spends $1000. Fine.

Small business (SB) instead needs to test *target* market. The
creative & offer are important but come second to this. This
means trying different lists or sites. So SB spends $10 x 100
sites = $1000. Fine.

Except you want the SB to spend $1000 per site. With 100 test
sites = $100,000. NOT fine.

That's the problem.

In other words, the SB tests market-niche (list / site). This
is different to a "broad market" BB requirement.

(A network doesn't solve the problem as it doesn't have enough
variety in a given category. Besides, which sane SB puts all
their eggs in the same basket?)

If you want to ignore SB then OK. But go to the Yellow Pages,
or a magazine, or a free newspaper. How many brand ads? How
many other ads just looking for a ROI? Why turn this business
down?

If the entire mainstream CPM industry ignores SB needs, and
only goes for BB "with the money" then this is suicidal.

Why? Because it turns ad space into a commodity. While agencies
can make money on creative work and sheer volume. The sites
themselves will always be pressured with "who's got the cheapest
CPM?".

The solution is to differentiate and make the ad space worth
more. If you're a brand site yourself, this helps. But most are
not and then you have to show either that you have results or
have a target market that is desired. This means meeting SB
needs. Which also means trials, detailed information,
and examples of successful products/advertisers.

Don't want to bother with SB? Fine, but then don't complain that
ad space is just a low-priced commodity.

> And Mark, I hate to be brutally honest here (well,
>actually, I don't). PowerPackedAds.com ...
>make it marketable in the first place a clipart
>drawing you found on the web doesn't portray competence.

It's fine for it's target market. I was going to test various
examples, prices, etc. But I doubt I'll bother as there's no
CPM route to market (and I don't have time for CPA).

It was only an "on the side" test. To see if it was possible to
test-market a niche product via CPM. I may re-use the
technology, but it's not that important.

Anyway, Pesach, perhaps you can pick one of your nice colorful,
pretty, ads. I'll use the software to add a "boring" text-
message lift to it. And you can measure the difference. I'm
prepared to be judged by results. :-)

>Let's also hope you have a kick-ass attorney, because
>Unicast is suing those people that they think violate
>their patents and your product fits the description.

Unicast patents don't really cover my software. A JavaScript
"Ad-banner rotator" is more likely to be covered !

Besides, the patent is much too broad and very likely to be
shrunk by the courts. It's a pain, but the over-stretched
USPO checks something is "new", but often leaves the "not-
obvious" test to the courts. This results in patents being
wrongly granted just because someone happens to be the first
to do something. Double-Click will no doubt be arguing with
them.

Mark Hopkins

PS As it happens, I do have a very good patent attorney.
Thanks for asking.







Received on Mon Feb 04 2002 - 09:29:37 CST