NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Proctor&Gamble: Still paying by click-through?
ONLINE-ADS>> Proctor&Gamble: Still paying by click-through?
Aric_Boyles_at_discovery.com
Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:20:19 -0400
Aric Boyles
02/18/97 04:20 PM
All:
I'm much less experienced than most of you (judging from your postings) in
this field, so consider the following a modest attempt at raising an
issue...
Does anyone remember the Proctor&Gamble and Yahoo deal last year? While
advertising on Yahoo, P&G basically disregarded the number of impressions,
and was paying ONLY for click-throughs. My questions are:
Has the idea of cost-per-click fizzled or are there still sites out there
adopting this model?
What was P&G's CPM based on click-through?
Was the click-through guaranteed and was the price based on this?
Also, here are my thoughts regarding the pay-by-click-through model:
Click-throughs seem to be all the rage, because they supposedly reflect a
genuine interest in a product, and therefore give the advertiser access to
a highly coveted target
audience. Advertisers pay considerably higher CPMs for click-throughs when
the only reason warranting premium advertising costs is genuine interest in
the product. This, however, is not always the case.
For someone to click on an ad, one of the following things must happen:
1. The user is genuinely interested in the product or service and would
like to learn more.
2. The user is hypnotized by the creative and drawn to the site where he or
she regains consciousness and immediately mashes the back button.
3. The user is passively surfing and is no longer interested in the
information contained on the page they are viewing. In this case, an
advertisement offers a quick and easy way out.
4. The user clicks by mistake.
Regardless of whether a user clicks or not, he/she receives exposure
(impression) to the ad. This impression is no less valuable than those
found in print ads. Click-throughs seem only slightly more desirable than
impressions when we consider the motivation behind the click. For those
users who have clicked-through for any reason other than genuine interest,
this should really only be counted as an impression. The problem arises
when we try to discern between valid, interest driven clicks and all other
clicks. Since this cannot be done, I don't see the worth in paying by
click-through. Think about it. How many times have you clicked on an ad
just because you thought the ad was creative or because you were bored?
Should this warrant a higher CPM while disregarding impressions?
Or let's apply this to another medium. Let's say for instance, JiffyLube
offered a coupon in the Sunday paper and only wanted to pay for the number
of coupons redeemed. What about all the eyeballs crossing that coupon who
decided not to cut it out because they just had a tune-up? Or those who saw
it, but were too busy to cut it out? Or those who were pleasantly surprised
to find that JiffyLube was only a mile away? Isn't that worth something?
Does anyone agree?
Thanks,
Aric Boyles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Q: Why should I pay $50-$70 CPM for targeted ads on Internet networks?
A: You probably shouldn't. With Adbot, bidding starts at only $5 CPM.
adbot: the auction market for internet advertising (tm) http://www.adbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
