NONE: "hits vs. visits"
"hits vs. visits"
Robert Kadar (rkadar_at_doubleclick.net)
Tue, 06 Aug 1996 11:42:58 -0400
Regarding Bruce Ackerman's and Peter Hartley's discussion of "hits vs.
visits" (below) -- a thorny issue with no real clear answer. A lot is
dependent on how the advertiser views Web advertising -- as a form of
brand-building or purely as a direct-response vehicle. We have some clients
who feel that there is value in the ad banner itself, regardless of how many
people click on it -- just like driving down the highway and seeing a
billboard, you can't "click" on it, but it clearly has value. Other clients
tell us: "I don't care how many people see our ad banner, just tell me how
many you brought to our Web site this month." Pure direct response mentality.
One thing that we are doing to help both define and increase the value of
Web advertising is to allow advertisers the opportunity to pre-test banner
creative. Advertisers can give us up to 10 ad banners that we will test on
the Web for 24-hours and provide a report within 48 hours showing the
different response rates per banner.
Once a particular banner has been "bench-marked" in this way, we can then
begin to discuss guaranteeing click-through rates based upon the creative test.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 11:51:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: Madvulcan <bruce_at_cache.net>
Subject: Re: visits vs. hits
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
---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Kadar
Regional Sales Manager
DoubleClick, Inc.
28 West 23 Street
New York, NY 10010
Voice: 212-727-5633
Fax: 212-727-5396
http://www.doubleclick.net
*** D O U B L E C L I C K - The Internet Advertising Network ***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
