NONE: Re: visits vs. hits (fwd)
Re: visits vs. hits (fwd)
Madvulcan (bruce_at_cache.net)
Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Peter Hartley wrote:
>
> At 05:47 PM 24-07-96 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >Well I'm glad you have this issue wrapped up so neatly
> >( at least in your head ).
> >
> >I think I'll call Time magazine and tell them I would like a full page
> >add, and also tell them I will pay them based on the number of people
> >who call me because the say that add.
> >
> >The problem with your what-really-matters-to-the-advertiser method is
> >that the advertiser has no skin in the game. If he gives you the
> >stupidest ugliest banner in the world, he does'nt pay.
> >
>
> That is exactly the point. Thank you for making it so well. This proposed
> model that you so instantly attack actually opens up all sorts of exciting
> avenues of CO-OPERATION between the parties - because it is SO OBVIOUS that
> the advertising *has* to work for anyone to benefit.
>
> Now, some ad designers, campaign managers and advertising agencies might
> very well attck this model - go straight for the jugular - because when
> their campaigns don't produce the goods - in a manner that can be measured
> in just a few day - they will be out looking for a new client.
>
Peter,
Can you guarantee immediate results? Of course not. Not even the best
copywriters can. That's not to say your idea is bad, but some testing,
tracking and revising should be built into the creator's fee. In fact, I
would say no cyberpreneur should create "a" banner ad -- always several --
for the very purpose of testing and finding those that work the best.
Bruce Ackerman
---------------------------------------------------
Direct Response Copywriter
bruce_at_cache.net
---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
