NONE: ONLINE ADS>> branding with banner ads (and more)
ONLINE ADS>> branding with banner ads (and more)
Herman Tumurcuoglu (hermant_at_microtec.net)
Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:55:57 -0400
In the last year we have seen the online ad model take a real beating. We
have seen generic CPM's drop under $10 and even targeted banners have
started to fall. Now I have decided to come out and say what has been on my
mind for a long time. I know this is going to upset some people in the
industry but I am starting to realize from the range of e-mails and calls I
have had since my original post that key players in the ad game actually
participate in these discussions and I think a discussion here from all
parties would help put things into perspective.
O.K. here goes. I have received a few private e-mails from people in the
group who supported my point about the need to look beyond click trough
performance and focus on branding with banner ads. There was also a couple
of posts that addressed the question, including one from Shannon L. Entin
who writes:
>I agree 100% - but how do you convince "click-through-obsessed"
advertisers of the value of this exposure?
Believe me Shannon, they already know the value of exposures, that's what
they have been buying for decades in magazines, posters, T.V. and
billboards. In fact any good advertiser will tell you that brand awareness
is a central point in most campaigns.
Actually, Shannon has an excellent point here. On the Web ads are turning
into a direct marketing proposition. This is killing the online and slowly
but sure the offline ad market. There is less emphasis on brand building ,
I remember that My Yahoo! campaign. Even if I did not press on that banner
once I did eventually try the service...I hope that the site I saw it in
got money for that exposure...but then again these days it may have been a
trade or a click rate.
This is not so much because ad agencies are not doing good creative work
(but this is a major reason and I still feel better jobs can be done...most
people do not even attempt to create brand awareness...infact most ads I
see do not even have the site url name or logo!!! advertising 101?) but
because the Internet allows for great direct marketing tales that blind
advertisers and because the market conditions as they are today undervalue
banner ads.
In her response to Shannon's post Laura K. Mitrovich just wrote Where else
could an unproven medium command rates as much as 100 times higher than the
traditional, proven media?
I am shocked. It is that type of comment from advertising professionals
that will kill the medium forever. Everyone knows that
a) The medium is proven.
b) The rates are actually much lower.
If both these statements were not true how do you explain such situations
as online revenues eating up print revenues start from Michael Fulton's post.
You don't need to justify your firms strategy by saying this. What is your
proof that traditional media ads, say the CK posters of men (because I used
women last time) in Jeans, has a favorable ROI. The fact that I am talking
about the ad here today is your only proof that the poster and the My
Yahoo! banner are both effective. In fact, according to my university
professor, off-line advertising is even more unporven than online
advertising. Over the years studies have shown that measuring success of
ads has not been as effective as once taught. The increasing clutter in our
physical environment is making ads less effective every day. Online ads
have yet to suffer the same burden of proof but there is already reason to
believe that their effectiveness both in terms of response an retention is
better, they are more personal, interactive and a alone on top of the web
page. If the advertiser ill defines marketing goals of their web site or
the advertisers Web sites are not conducive to purchase it cannot possibly
be blamed on the banner or the web site carrying the banner. I am about to
complete a thesis in Web site planning from a marketing perspective and
believe me over 90% of marketers have not clearly defined the marketing
goals of their Web site.
Anybody who knows Web economics will tell you why some advertising
professionals are playing dumb and trying to convince us that banner ad
impressions do not have so much value. The fact is, and I am going to be
blunt about this, supply outweighs demand terribly and there is way too
many "bogus" web sites out there willing to take anything in return for
banner advertising. When the linkexchanges and adbots of the world start
pulling these bits together, the result is a massive pile of unsold
inventory basically up for grabs for a bulk (low) price. Then there are
vultures waiting by the sidelines who will pay pennies on the dollar for
impressions and clicks-troughs. Some of these vultures, as we have come to
find out do not even pay affiliate sites and BELIEVE ME THERE WILL BE A LOT
MORE. This is why: with volume comes low quality control (I can write at
least two pages about this). The high number of affiliate web sites has a
growing management overhead (Mark Welsh makes a good point about this in
futures of ad Networks). Some of these networks now require a minimum of
100,000 page views, but because these networks do not value the exposures
they distribute they do not get money for the bandwidth which is "wasted".
Often these networks do not factor in such costs and find themselves behind
the 8 ball if they fall back on advertisers.
And now comes a new group. Vultures that eat other vultures. Basically
promising network sites a percentage of sales generated from a visitor who
came trough the banner. Why not, they have accumulated so much bulk... and
I am told that even mega sites like yahoo! do the same. When these
companies dump ad inventory into the market place for a percentage of sales
or pennies a click trough it comes back to haunt their CPM sales. I hope
these companies realize that they are killing the CPM market and slowly
moving to a direct marketing situation. One such firm called me up and told
me their advertiser is looking at this as a direct marketing thing...what
arrogance! Like the customer came begging on their door asking to do direct
marketing.
In fact why not start a new discussion group for these people called d-m
online. a-o online is getting cluttered with direct marketing discussion. I
have nothing against direct marketing. I just hate to see lines get blurred.
There are a lot of people here who have put in their 2 cents about the
future of advertising and I respect their opinions. Real audio, video,
Java, shockwave, you name it, there are no shortage of ideas exchanged
here. Targeted banner banner advertising was one of those hot new ideas not
even 5 months ago. It was supposed to be the future. Well let's face it,
the future is here and we are still looking for new ideas. Banner
advertising is not very intrusive and has become a norm and like many
people have noted in this group: It's here to stay.
There is a upcoming advertising conference called 1997 A Market Matures...
I hope in 1998 it will not be called the market dies. I think advertising
agencies have a major role to play here. One of educating the client and
one of going beyond just creative and bookings. More energy has to be spent
on creating a brand awareness campaign and this means going back to the
advertisers web site and changing things.
Herman Tumurcuoglu The Mother of all Search Engines
President and CEO http://www.mamma.com
Mamma Systems Inc.
======================================================================
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
More neighborhoods to visit than New York. (And much safer.)
Stop by and see our online media kit. No need to take the subway.
http://www.geocities.com/mediakit/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
