NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Re: Are <ALT= > tags considered banner impressions?
ONLINE-ADS>> Re: Are <ALT= > tags considered banner impressions?
Peter Hartley (hartley_at_shop.hartley.on.ca)
Sat, 14 Sep 1996 21:22:21 -0400
At 03:15 PM 14-09-96 -0700, Mark J Welch wrote:
>
>(1) If an advertiser doesn't want to pay for display of an ALT tag, then
>the solution is simple: don't provide an ALT tag, or use a very short tag
>(e.g. ALT="Ad"), if payment is based on impressions. (Arguably, the
>webmaster may want to provide a good teaser ALT tag that would lead the
>websurfer to load the banner, hence getting credit for the ad display.
>
>(2) For advertisers who want to verify the exact number of banner loads, and
>who don't trust the webmaster's server counts, load the ad directly from the
>advertiser's web site. (This does require that the advertiser maintain a
>fast, responsive web site able to handle the traffic, and of course a
>separate banner file for each ad placement.)
>
The bottom line is that all of this is fantasy.
1) Most servers log the "loading" of a file when it ends, even if the user
aborts the transfer. Any record of a user_abort generally doesn't show what
elements were being transferred at the instance of the abort.
2) Sensible web sites make extensive use of caching. If the target element
is in cache, then it isn't even fetched, so it doesn't get logged except at
the cache site.
The Industry, the people in it, and those advertising on it simply have to
come to terms with the horrible facts that in the end the only thing that
counts, and the only thing that in fact CAN be counted, is delivered
prospects, which means that the sites hosting the ads will have to tally
click-throughs and the sites paying for the ads will have tally
"HTTP_REFERER's" which means that all the target pages will either have to
be cgi-bin script driven, or duplicated so that each advertising site is
delivering to a unique URL. The latter is the simpler and easier and isn't
very intensive - the technique is to make the visitor's browser do the work
by using something like this as the entire contents...
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Refresh" CONTENT="1; URL=http://my.site.com/realpage.html">
which works with most grown-up browsers.
Why is there this element of distrust between the advertisers and the rest?
Perhaps because WWW banner ads don't work all that well?
Perhaps because the prices being asked are excessive for the TANGIBLE results
being achieved?
The best ad in the world won't sell you something that you don't want.
Many of the highest "hit-rate" sites get their hits be providing something
that their clients DO want - which is why the client is there, and which is
what the client came to do. These people are especially hard to distract
for their original intention.
IMHO of course.
Peter Hartley
for "Hartley's" > http://www.hartley.on.ca
Contributing to the 'net with...
Hot Bots > http://infobot.hartley.on.ca/infobot.html
2SPAM or not2SPAM > http://www.hartley.on.ca/dspam.html
EZBiz home biz > http://ezbiz.hartley.on.ca/ezbiz.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
>>>>>>>>Announcing the 1996 CyberAtlas Web Advertising Roadmap<<<<<<<<
Need quick answers? Get a copy of the Roadmap and find your way around
click-through, banner design, and much more: http://www.cyberatlas.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
