NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Haggling tactics, Banner testing, Feedback, etc
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Haggling tactics, Banner testing, Feedback, etc
Leo Sheiner (leo_at_netcomuk.co.uk)
Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:57:45 +0000
scotty_at_bluemarble.net (Scott Southwick) wrote:
<snip>
>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.
>
Of course one could create a banner that discouraged clicks but was
good branding. However in a market like Safe-Audit, Host site webmasters
who are pretty savvy would understand that. They would not host such
a banner unless the price per click reflected the likely CTR. Since most
advertisers on Safe are more concerned about immediate and quantifiable
results that isn't an issue. But for our own banners hosted on Safe and
promoting Safe we are paying per registration while getting a great
deal of branding :) as well.
<snip>
> 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.
>
Not so. The argument could be turned around and stated as paying CPM
blithely pretends, against all reason and evidence, that banners have no
ability to initiate an action or generate a sale. Equally untrue. They are
both measures which can be used by everyone in order to assess the full
complement of effects. People project from CPM with CTR and conversion
ratios to extrapolate the result they seek. My point is simply that Click is
closer to the end result and is therefore less distorting but is equally valid
a measure from which you can extrapolate branding value. i.e 15 cents
per click at 2% CTR is $3 CPM.
>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.
<snip>
Of course PPS is ideal for direct sales and the advertiser then has a
cann't-lose basis. But, depending on the product or service PPS sometimes
favours the advertiser too far against the host site especially if the data
comes from the advertiser and this is where the click is the ideal measure
as it sits between CPM and PPS.
Leo Sheiner
http://safe-audit.com/ promotes Ecommerce on the
most cost-effective Transaction Banner Ad Network. 3,000
Hostsites with 100 million pageviews can boost your traffic.
mailto:leo_at_global-m.com Telephone +44181 346 0770 Leo
7 good reasons http://safe-audit.com/main/link/promo.cfm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
