 |
|
NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Haggling tactics, Banner testing, Feedback, etc
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Haggling tactics, Banner testing, Feedback, etc
Scott Southwick (scotty_at_bluemarble.net)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 14:53:46 -0500
In message <3.0.32.19980120121827.011c0100_at_popd.netcomuk.co.uk>, Leo
Sheiner writes:
>scotty_at_liszt.com (Scott Southwick) wrote
>in response to the post from Mark Welch:
>
>>I used to hate the pay-per-click model on principle, and I still think
>>it's a wrongheaded way to price straight banner advertising.
>>
>Scott makes some interesting points about the value of using Clicks
>as a good measure for value with non-banner links. I believe that both he
>and Mark are wrong in thinking clicks are essentially flawed for straight
>banners however.
Hi Leo,
I should have been clearer. I had originally written a much longer and
more specific diatribe about my problems with click-based pricing for
straight banner deals, but I deleted it and substituted the single
word "wrongheaded" for brevity's sake.
I can condense my main problem down to one truism: if I were
purchasing clicks, I would first create the world's most austere,
least clickworthy, most branding-heavy banner. (Perhaps I would just
put my company name and logo in black against a brown background!)
Imagine: it would be in my power to choose 10,000 visits and five
million exposures, or 10,000 visits and 200,000 exposures. Which would
be better for my business? It's a no-brainer.
And I hope nobody claims in response that branding has a 1-to-1
correlation with CTR -- that a product+banner that generates fewer
mouseclicks is also generating fewer brain-synapse-firings. Or, more
to the point: even if this were somehow true, it's simply not the
publisher's problem. The publisher just gives the space -- a known
quantity -- and it's up to the advertiser what to make of it. In the
same manner, the landlord of an apartment doesn't charge rent
according to how good or bad a month the tenant had.
Here's what I originally wrote:
The click-based model is an immature model because it blithely
pretends, against all reason and evidence, that banners have no
branding value (indeed, that branding itself has no value); and it is
an insulting model to publishers, because it forces them to bear the
cost for factors wholly outside their control -- the desirability,
quality and compatibility of the product, for starters.
But I believe that's my heard-earned distatse for pay-per-sale pricing
seeping in. Pay-per-sale pricing is the real culprit. --As my original
post said, click-based pricing has *great* value (and I know Leo's
company is one of the few making good use of this) for pricing
alternative forms of advertising, and particularly for pricing
multiple forms of advertising together in a package.
But otherwise: if you just want your particular banner on a particular
site, then just pay the going rate, and quit namby-pamby-ing around.
yrs,
Scotty
Scott Southwick -- scotty_at_bluemarble.net
http://www.bluemarble.net/~scotty/
Speaking for himself...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
Check out our AdTech: West coverage
http://www.o-a.com/adtech-archive.html
brought to you in part by Match.com
http://www.match.com/advertising/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
HOW TO JOIN THE ONLINE ADVERTISING DISCUSSION LIST
|
With an archive of more than 14,000 postings, since 1996 the
Online Advertising Discussion List has been the Internet's leading forum focused on professional discussion
of online advertising and online media buying and selling strategies, results, studies, tools, and media
coverage. If you wish to join the discussion list, please use this link to sign up on the home page of the Online Advertising Discussion List. |
|
|
Online Advertising Industry Leaders:
Clicksor
List and Found
AdJungle
The Laredo Group
Add your company...
|
