NONE: ONLINE-ADS>> the industry *hush* over banner caching
ONLINE-ADS>> the industry *hush* over banner caching
Brad Byrd (brad_at_newgate.net)
Mon, 28 Dec 1998 10:49:30 -0600 (CST)
The December issue of Business 2.0 (a solid new mag on the
web industry, at first impression) has an interesting
article by Michael Tchong (of www.iconocast.com) discussing
browsers, page views, and caching ["Overanalysis? Cache that
Thought!", p128]. As most of you know (or should know)
there's a real concern among some in the web world over the
caching of images. Why is there concern? Because the
viewer can see a cached image multiple times, but the
advertiser will only get a single record of the page view.
Estimates suggest that banner ads might actually be shown
30-70% more often than you think, as a customer jumps back
and forth through a site while browsing.
The reality of these "unreported ads" has serious
implications for current web/ad metrics, as Michael points
out: (1) "Real" impression levels are higher than measured
impressions. This means that Yahoo and Excite and everyone
else has more ad inventory - maybe 30-70% more - than they
think they do (or than they are letting on to). (2) More
inventory means lower per-impression value, so CPMs should
drop. (3) More page views means, implicityly, that CTR
(clickthrough rates) are similarly 30-70% lower than they
are currently measured at.
I'll add: (4) Branding is 30-70% higher than we think.
(That's actually a joke, of sorts)
This is all important insight into the efficacy of the
banner advertising marketplace - certainly news that BUYERS
need to know...and they don't seem to be discussing it.
There certainly hasn't been much effort on the part of
content providers to "solve" the caching problem (there are
several ways around it)...perhaps it's not their concern or
responsibility. But why isn't *our* industry working to
"solve" it, to the benefit of our media buying clients ?
Michael suggests the reason in the conclusion of his
article, when he observes "The result would be depression of
the industry's overall performance as measured by CPMs and
response rates. Not a desirable outcome for a nascent
industry...it may well be that too much analysis can be a
bad thing."
In sum, it sounds like the symptom to a larger problem. In
my opinion, there are still too many "online advertising"
firms relying exclusively on banner ads to advance the
interest of their clients...and these firms are in effect
"tied to" the banner approach, for better or for worse. But
if firms stay snookered into banner dependence, I think they
risk boxing themselves into a moral dilemma regarding
addressing the needs of their clients. It's hard to
honestly evaluate the tool you are tied to.
I'm interested to hear opinions on this... :-)
Brad.Byrd - Dir.Biz.Dev - NewGate Internet "Online
Marketing, PR, and Market Research since 1989"
mailto:brad_at_newgate.net - http://www.newgate.net
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
GoTo.com, AEC Media and The Mining Co.
GoTo.com -- Get Keyword Advertising for Pennies a Click
If they don't click you don't pay!
http://www.goto.com/d/advertisers/p/generic2/?Promo=onlineads.12
---
GET 60% OF THE ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, & CONTRACTORS WITH ONE BUY
**Cutting-Edge Technology. Full Reporting. Premium Network Partners**
AEC Media has unmatchable value. Visit: http://www.aecmedia.net/
---
NOBODY DELIVERS ONLINE BUYERS LIKE THE MINING CO. _at_Plan says Mining Co.
users are more likely to buy online than users of the average navigation
site. To reach them, contact Alan Wragg (awragg_at_miningco.com)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
