NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Is targeting a bad thing when everyone does it??
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Is targeting a bad thing when everyone does it??
Neil Monnens (nmonnens_at_webrep.net)
Wed, 27 May 1998 14:52:17 -0700
Richard Hoy brought up a great thread:
>If everyone is picking only the "targeted" impressions, what
>is the leftover stuff worth? Does it have any value at all?
The All-Important "Base Audience"
Advertisers should appreciate the dynamics of a base
audience and how it can affect their media purchase.
Regardless of the content provider type, be it a magazine, a
television show, or even a Web site, the rules don't change.
By examining direct mail and magazines, two businesses often
compared to the Web, an appreciation for "base audience"
dynamics can be attained.
The Web is often compared to direct mail with its ability to
target one-on-one. Yet there are distinct differences
between the Web and direct mail that must be distinguished
for effective marketing. For example, multiple brokers can
sell the same list of names to multiple marketers who, in
turn, can all send mail to names on the list at the very
same time. The same 2,000 mail boxes, for example, can
receive many, many different pieces of direct mail
simultaneously. There is no limit to the amount of mail an
individual can receive, yet unlike direct mail, the Web does
limit the number of "mail" in the form of page views: there
is a finite amount of impressions a Web site can offer
advertisers (marketers).
Examination of the publishing business further explains the
concept: when marketers place a national ad in SmartMoney
magazine, the message is delivered to the whole audience. If
an advertiser wants only to buy SmartMoney's California
subscribers, the publication must place another
advertisement in the same position that circulates to the
remaining 49 states.
The Web is no different. Advertisers who single-out a "piece
of pie" on a specific Web site for targeting purposes forces
the Web site to find other advertisers for the remainder of
the pie. If the site doesn't find a comparable advertiser
for the remaining pieces of pie, then the base is flawed for
all other advertisers. Although an attractive element of the
Web, targeting should not sacrifice the nature of the base
audience. No doubt Web advertiser "A" would want to know if
advertiser "B" is gobbling up all the .coms of a site when
running on a site concurrently.
If an advertiser wants to reach the .edu audience, the
advertiser should buy Web sites with a high concentration of
.edus. If the advertiser does not want the banner to go to
any other domain, then the advertiser can provide
alternative banners to show to the non .edu audience or have
the site put up a "non-for-profit" or "house" ad.
When an advertiser purchases 200,000 impressions in one
month on GolfWeb, for example, the advertiser is buying 10%
of their available inventory; the 10% represents a slice of
their audience consisting of .coms, .edus, .nets, etc. This
is a fair and representative purchase for the advertiser.
If a content provider site allowed advertisers to pick and
choose what slice they wanted, the scenario may look
something like this: Ford buys the .com impressions on
GolfWeb for the month of October. Ford is told that they
will not be getting the New York impressions for the second
week in October because NY Photo Shop has purchased those
impressions. American Express calls and wants the .edu
impressions for a campaign starting October 23. Apple
Computer wants to purchase 300,000 ROS (run-of-site)
impressions in October yet the site has to respond: "Okay,
but you won't be getting any .coms, or any New York
impressions during the second week of October or any .edus
starting October 23."
Confused? The conclusion is simple: Unless the same exact
conditions govern Ford's next ad buy on GolfWeb, or any
other site, there is no way to compare their campaign. ===
The above is reprinted from the 10/96 issue of the
WebRepOrt, WebRep's monthly newsletter. Online version can
be found
http://webrep.net/Pages/archive/webreport9610.html
Dave Graham of WebRep also wrote an article "Can't Find Your
Banners?" in the 11/97 issue of the WebReport which
is also a good read on the subject.
http://webrep.net/Pages/archive/webreport9711.html
I brought up the same question at last year's IAB meeting in
San Francisco to a "targeting on the Internet" panel and no
one had a solution. This subject is a legitimate concern.
I also eagerly look forward to a response from DoubleClick
or 24/7.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neil Monnens (mailto:nmonnens_at_webrep.net)
WebRep, LLC.
1850 Union St., Suite 1149
San Francisco, CA 94123
Tel 415 440-3494
Fax 415 922-8815
Client list: < http://www.webrep.net/Pages/list.html >
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsors:
Internet.com and ICONOCAST
50% of Internet.com's high tech audience does not frequent CNET or ZDNET
Reach the Internet audience you're looking for! For more info email
sl_at_internet.com or go to http://www.internet.com/mediakit/index2.html
---
"ICONOCAST is something I look forward to getting and continuously
share with my sales staff." Jed Savage, VP/Sales, CBS SportsLine
To subscribe, visit http://www.iconocast.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
