NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> DEBATE: 4/16/98 - measuring impressions, digest # 04
ONLINE-ADS>> DEBATE: 4/16/98 - measuring impressions, digest # 04
richard_at_tenagra.com
Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:08:44 -0500 (CDT)
How should our industry measure an impression?
4/16/98, digest # 04
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is special "debate" mailing from the Online Advertising
Discussion List. Anyone on the list is free to send in a response
to be considered for inclusion.
You will receive this mailing in addition to your normal
Online Ads posts/digests/reports.
web site supporting list: http://www.o-a.com/
archive: http://www.o-a.com/archive/
moderator: Richard Hoy
posting address: online-ads_at_o-a.com
subscribe/unsubscribe instructions are at the end of this message
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
ICONOCAST and ValueClick
"The quality of ICONOCAST, the brevity and frequency is absolutely
spot on!" - Marc Phillips, Director, www.aptstrategies.com.au
E-mail sub_at_list.iconocast.com with "subscribe iconocast" in SUBJECT
---
Got unsold ad Inventory??? We've got advertisers!!!
ValueClick is your hands-off solution
http://www.valueclick.com/host
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Contents
Panelists' Responses:
1.) Thomas F. Hespos - K2 Design, Inc.
2.) Sean Pfister - C|Net
Online Ads List Responses:
3.) Paul Hart <paulh_at_cnet.com> - Wants of Advertisers vs. Publishers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 15:39:20 -0400
From: "Hespos, Tom" <thespos_at_k2design.com>
We've heard a lot about how our definition of "ad view"
needs to address caching and the actual delivery of an ad
graphic to a user.
How will our definition deal with the notion of spider and
crawler hits? I have seen logfiles for sites where a
significant number of ad requests were logged by IP
addresses of known spider and robots. I'm not talking about
1-2 percent of traffic. I'm talking 10 to 30 percent.
Should the ads requested (and transferred) by spiders,
crawlers and robots be counted as ad views? Or should sites
and third-party servers filter out known crawlers using IP
address filtering?
For one, I think that advertisers should not have to pay for
it everytime an Infoseek spider comes through to re-crawl a
site, for example.
Thoughts?
Thomas F. Hespos, Jr.
Media Manager, K2 Design
Webmaster, OLAF - the On Line Advertising Forum
(212) 301-8800
http://www.k2design.com (K2 Design Home Page)
http://members.aol.com/~THespos (The Spos Zone)
http://www.olaf.net (OLAF - the On Line Advertising Forum)
The opinions expressed above are my own and should not reflect in any
way on my employer.
-----------------------------POST NUMBER 2
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 20:06:42 -0700
From: Sean Pfister <seanp_at_cnet.com>
I think the question of which is the best technical means of
measuring "one person seeing an ad one time" has to be
examined in terms of cost: cpu cycles, Java-laden ads that
take longer to download, actual $$ spent on software &
servers, etc. I am willing to trade off a better technology
for a less costly one, especially if the less costly
approach is easier to implement by everybody, yields data
that are comprehensible to media planners, and looks like it
could be improved.
Some of the data that won't be measured by a lesser
technology can be estimated through sampling procedures
employing the more robust technology. This is similar to
certain syndicated print data, where Average Issue Audience
can be weighted by answers to questions like "How much of
the magazine do you typically read? 25%, 50%, 75%, All."
If there were an estimate for graphics off, media planners
might want to weight down the scheduled impressions. Maybe
with a caching estimate, publishers can weight the delivery
back up. (and researchers will continue to have job security
:) )
____________________________________________________
Sean Pfister
Director of Research and Analysis
seanp_at_cnet.com
Tel: 415/395-7805 x1529
FAX: 415/395-7814
http://www.cnet.com
-----------------------------POST NUMBER 3
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 13:41:54 -0400
From: Paul Hart <paulh_at_cnet.com>
To continue my discussion.
(BTW I have some definite views on the particulars of
various methods for counting (I have seen several posts
about using this methodology versus that), but I want to
focus (at the moment) on the higher level issues, because I
believe without resolving these we will never be able to get
to the details.)
Point #2
Various different parties and interests are involved in the
discussion of methodologies and standards. I will expand
upon that idea by mentioning that I also believe that people
have a distorted view of what the internet is truly capable
of accomplishing (relates to my discussion about technology)
Tom Shields has eluded to this difficulty in his original
post. It might seem like a simple thing, but if your
fundamental goals (I mention the goals word again) differ,
it is hard to even begin a fruitful discussion.
The most basic example of this is the difference between the
interests of publishers and advertisers. Many people have
the view of the internet as "ultimately" flexible. We have
this media that I can track at a very fine detail every
action taken by every user on our sites. The reality is very
different.
>From my (somewhat biased :-) view publishers are looking
for systems/methodologies that are maintainable, flexible
and comparable (and obviously to make money). They want to
be able to "count" all sorts of advertisements opportunities
both now and in several months. They don't want to have to
subscribe to the "methodology" of the month club.
Advertisers are looking for more and more precise (and
comparable) measurements. They are interested in
understanding, in detail, what they are purchasing. (IHMO
Advertisers often don't see the limitations of the
technology.)
So you might say, what's the big deal then. The problem
relates back to my discussions about the limitations and
speed of change of technology and my basic hypothesis that
no methodology currently available with work in 100% of the
cases. If a publisher believes this then they are going to
look for a solution that they can live with for a while.
Advertisers are going to be more willing to ask for the
newest and latest advances in technology. If you don't
understand this prior to discussions, you are likely to have
some difficulty coming to a resolution.
Next email I will talk about the challenges related to the
fast past changes in our media.
--
Paul Hart, Director, Advertising Technology
CNET, The Computer Network
paulh_at_cnet.com, (908) 575-7400
http://www.cnet.com
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
ICONOCAST and ValueClick
"The quality of ICONOCAST, the brevity and frequency is absolutely
spot on!" - Marc Phillips, Director, www.aptstrategies.com.au
E-mail sub_at_list.iconocast.com with "subscribe iconocast" in SUBJECT
---
Got unsold ad Inventory??? We've got advertisers!!!
ValueClick is your hands-off solution
http://www.valueclick.com/host
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
SUBSCRIBE INSTRUCTIONS
To subscribe to the Online Advertising Discussion List,
Fill out the form at: http://www.o-a.com/
UNSUBSCRIBE INSTRUCTIONS
You may leave the Online Advertising Discussion List at
any time by sending an email message with the word UNSUBSCRIBE
(just the word) in the body or content of your message to:
online-ads-digest-request_at_o-a.com
if you get the digest version, and
online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
if you get the non-digest version.
Online Advertising Discussion List
http://www.o-a.com/
a publication of The Tenagra Corporation
http://www.tenagra.com/
