NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> Jupiter Conference Coverage by ClickZ - 8/18/98
ONLINE-ADS>> Jupiter Conference Coverage by ClickZ - 8/18/98
richard_at_tenagra.com
Tue, 18 Aug 1998 15:51:33 -0500 (CDT)
Below is a special mailing to The Online Advertising Discussion
List about the Jupiter Online Advertising Conference, written by
Andy Bourland, publisher of The ClickZ Network. You will
receive these reports in addition to your normal Online Ads
posts/digests.
*********************************************************************
Jupiter Online Advertising Conference
Wrapping Up Jupiter
Andrew Bourland
Publisher
The ClickZ Network
http://www.clickz.com/
*********************************************************************
I came away from this week's Jupiter Online Advertising Conference
with a disquieting feeling. I sensed a fundamental lack of respect
and trust between on one side the advertisers and agencies
and on the other web site publishers and the companies who
provide services for them.
Why do I feel that way? Here's a few issues that spell it out more
clearly.
Issue One: Third-Party Ad Serving
What the agencies are saying:
"I don't trust you, and I certainly don't trust the numbers you
provide me. I don't care if you spent tens of thousands purchasing
AdForce or Accipiter or NetGravity or DoubleClick DART to manage
your ad delivery. We'd rather serve the ads ourselves so that we
count the impressions the way that we believe they should be
counted. Our methodology yields results anywhere from 10 to 50
percent fewer impressions than the solutions that you publishers
employ. I'd rather use the system we have developed internally."
"Furthermore, I may want to change creative on the fly. I don't
want to have to wait around for your people to change it. We'd
rather do it ourselves ."
What the publishers are saying:
"Why are your numbers any better than ours? I would think that
AdForce et al would have researched this issue enough so they could
deliver a pretty reliable count of what was served."
"I assume your count avoids any cached impressions, which would
probably throw the numbers off. Hey, if a pair of eyeballs see an
ad generated from my site, I deserve credit for that view cached
or not!"
What I propose:
How about a fundamental agreement among the agencies, the reporting
companies and the major publishers as to what exactly IS an ad
impression? If the reporting varies so widely among the major
providers, wouldn't it stand to reason that there is also some
variation among the solutions which agencies employ? If there is a
standard, there should be no variation in the count, regardless of
providers.
And why shouldn't providers build-in as a standard feature the
ability for agencies to modify their creative without going through
the site? Some do already. Why shouldn't they all? If agencies
could have more hands-on access to their campaign on a particular
site, and a counting methodology was agreed upon, couldn't we move
beyond the third-party serving issue to the more important issues
of effectiveness and results?
Issue 2: Rich Media
What the advertisers/agencies are saying:
"We've got to get beyond the current technology of animated gif
banners. We've got to engage consumers with ads that enable them to
better interact with the brand, to become more immersed in the
product, to be able to buy directly from the banner."
"We've developed the technology to the point where rich media ads
will load quickly on any browser, or avoid any interaction with
browsers or systems that can't handle it."
"We have the money, so we have the power. If you as a publisher
won't accept these rich media banners, we'll take it to a publisher
who WILL."
What the publishers are saying:
"Not so quick, guys . We agree that rich media ads are cooler and
do a better job of grabbing attention than the current animated gif
banners."
"But you have to understand that our primary value our only
currency is our audience. They are remarkably impatient and
unforgiving. If a page on my site loads slow, or if a rich media
banner causes their system to freeze or crash, we catch hell for it
and/or lose a part of our audience."
"More than half of the audience on the internet uses modems slower
than 56K to access, so we are risking a great deal by offering up
that kind of an ad."
"We are not willing to risk our audience for whatever short-term
gains we might get through your rich media campaign. In fact,
PLEASE get my competitors to carry them so I can pick up more of
their audience."
What I propose:
InterVU has based its entire business model on enabling quick, safe
and reliable delivery of rich media ads to systems that can handle
them. It substitutes animated gif banners to those that cannot. It
has a turnkey set of code that would enable any site to safely
deliver many types of rich media ads.
Being one of those who is hesitant to risk pissing off my readers
by employing rich media ads, I've offered to "rich media enable"
ClickZ with the InterVU code. I'll let you know how it goes. Or
perhaps it would be more accurate to say that YOU will let ME know.
But if respect is shown for the primary asset a site has (its
audience) and technology is employed that eliminates the risk of
rich media, this is an issue that should be resolved and resolved
soon.
The "We've got the money and therefore the power" argument only
aggravates the argument. Working together, communicating
constantly, we can deliver more effective ads and make this
business more lucrative for all.
Issue Three: Cost per Action (CPA) vs Cost per Impression (CPM)
What the agencies are saying:
"Our clients are demanding results. They are demanding
accountability. The only measure for us in evaluating any media
campaign is whether it delivered clicks, or subscribers, or
customers, and so on."
"Your value for us is solely your ability to deliver results, and
those results are all we are willing to pay for. We will pay you a
bounty for each click, each subscriber, each sale our client's
banner generates on your site. Impressions mean nothing to us.
Branding has no value. Just give us results and we'll pay you for
them."
"Besides, there is a gross oversupply of impressions internet-wide.
Why not give us your unsold impressions in exchange for a
percentage?"
What the publishers are saying:
"Our biggest asset is our audience an attractive, desirable group
of likely buyers. Our only currency is our ad inventory."
"You are asking us to shoulder the risk for YOUR client and YOUR
creative so that you don't have to expose yourself to any risk. You
pay us a pittance in response compared to what we could get on a
CPM basis. You want free access to my audience at MY risk."
"I'll be happy to work with you to ensure the success of your
campaign. After all, I think I understand my audience. But I can't
guarantee what level of success you will have."
What I propose:
I think there is an obvious middle ground here. How about a blended
CPM/CPA model which pays a publisher a fair amount for "rent" and
access to their audience, combined with a nice upside if the
campaign does well?
This doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or proposition.
Can't we just meet in the middle?
Serving Up Issues, Not Sales Pitches
Conferences aren't necessarily the place for media buyers and
sellers to work out all their differences. But they do offer an
opportunity to put the issues on the table and talk openly and
honestly with each other.
Sometimes, however, the speakers got too wrapped up in their own
sales and promotional agendas and failed to address the issues. A
few did but many did not.
One such thwarted opportunity occurred on day one when, after
listening to the CEOs of various companies toss out their sales
pitches, i33 CEO Drew Rayman said directly that he didn't trust
their figures, and offered up his own solution for advertisers to
get reliable numbers. The response from the likes of NetGravity and
AdForce and various other ad serving companies in the audience?
Nary a word.
It would have been nice to hear them state for the record how they
count an ad impression and challenge Rayman to reveal his
methodology. An honest interchange revealing their differences
would be informative and useful for the audience, not to mention
far more interesting.
In order to bridge the gaps that currently exist between buyers and
sellers in the interactive space, the panelists and speakers at
these events need to risk generating a little heat and controversy.
They may have to risk pissing somebody off. It may mean setting
aside their sales agenda for the day in order to get some issues
out on the table.
Forget the PowerPoint sales pitches .let's dig deep into the issues
that sorely need to be addressed.
Portal Pot: And the Winner Is !
Thanks to all of you who threw your hat into the portal pot ring
all in all, we had an overwhelming response to the question of how
many times the word "portal" would be used by conference speakers
at the Jupiter forum. And to clarify: We hand-counted (no
technology involved) only those times portal was spoken directly
from the podium we didn't include those times it was hawked on
the exhibitor floor or uttered by Jupiter attendees.
Responses ranged from the serious to the outrageous Wendy Gaska
of Success Associates went out on a skinny little limb with her
guess of 12,302 (based on a formula too convoluted to describe
here). But alas creativity only gets you the Nice Try Award in this
game.
The REAL winner set forth a guess that was a fraction of Gaska's.
Laurie Ryan of CMB InternetSound had the clearest crystal ball. She
guessed that portal would be mentioned 17 times a mere 3 less
than it was actually uttered. For her clairvoyance, Ryan gets a
copy of a hot conference tchotcke The Digital Estate by Chuck
Martin. (Thank you, Engage.)
Surprised by the paucity of portals? Us, too. But imagine the depth
of our despair had AOL, Microsoft, Disney and Alta Vista not been
present! We shudder to think .
*********************************************************************
Previous Award Winning Jupiter Online Coverage:
Jupiter Forum Day One Coverage:
Making Sense of Ad Technologies
(http://www.searchz.com/bestof/alert/081298.html)
Jupiter Forum Day Two Coverage:
Beyond The Hype
(http://www.searchz.com/bestof/alert/081398.html)
Jupiter Forum Day Three Coverage:
Further Beyond The Hype
(http://www.clickz.com/alert.html)
*********************************************************************
Copyright (C) 1998 ClickZ Corporation. All rights reserved. May
be reproduced in any medium for noncommercial purposes as long as
attribution is given.
*********************************************************************
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/
