NONE: Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Limit difference in Third Party Serving?
Re: ONLINE-ADS>> Limit difference in Third Party Serving?
jgehman_at_creativelabs.com
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 08:30:10 -0500 (CDT)
"Kim O'Connor" <koconnor_at_upside.com> wrote:
>>When I end a campaign that was served by a third party I end up owing
>impressions....the difference has been as much (so far) as 33% (Ad
>Knowledge) on impressions and 16% on click thrus!
>>What do the agency folks think about limiting the difference to
>say...15-20% as far as make goods are concerned? I don't know how else I
>can know what I have available to sell!
Well, Kim...
This is a massive issue in the industry--one that could very
well prevent it from achieving legitimacy. It's probably an
issue that has been intentionally swept under the
rug--because not enough people know or care. Sure, you're
concerned as an advertising vendor. But hey, we're
concerned as media buyers. We may be on different sides of
the issue, but our enemy is the same--technology providers
who just don't get it :) We too have seen
discrepancies--and we haven't even moved to third-party
serving, yet...
Advertiser reported click thrus versus our referral log
files have been off as much as 70%. We're not talking about
a few clicks here or there. We're talking about 10,000 and
20,000 click differentials in a week. You can imagine the
impact on CPC! Dashes any positive ROI in a hurry.
The trouble is, you're assuming your ad report is accurate,
at the expense of the third-party report. Hmmm...where's
the quid pro quo?
Fact is, we've had some of the usual ad serving suspects
visit us. Some conceded that if you went to an advertising
vendor that used their product to serve ads, and ran a
campaign using their product to serve the ads third-party,
you would have discrepancies between the two products--from
the same company. When pressed, others didn't even know
what would happen--they'd never even benchmarked themselves!
While companies like I/Pro, ABC and whoever else is still
worried about counting page views are busy fading into
obscurity, no one is worried about auditing and validating
impressions served. When an advertiser serves a billion
impressions a year, 10-20% is huge, 70% is obscene. If any
other traditional media misses its rate base, the advertiser
is protected--why should it be any different online? Online
advertisers don't want to do CPC deals--they want to be just
like any other media--why then should the advertiser take it
on the chin for under-delivery?
Before ranting too much on the advertiser vs. ad vendor,
let's not lose sight of the problem--the technology vendors.
None of them get it!!! (For more on the technology
bottleneck, see my earlier O-A post "Why media buyers
distrust publishers." Also, later this month, an expanded
rant in ClickZ.)
Let's hope the technology vendors get it right--and soon!
===========================
Joel Gehman
Internet Marketing Analyst
Creative Labs
mailto:jgehman_at_creativelabs.com
408-428-6600 x6904
========================================================================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This week's Online Advertising Discussion List sponsor:
The Mining Company
QUESTION: What has 5,000 fingers and has grown 44% since April? It's been
called "a Yahoo! on steroids," and it's spreading fast across the web.
ANSWER: The 500 Expert Guides at http://MiningCo.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Online Advertising Discussion List To Unsubscribe send UNSUBSCRIBE
http://www.o-a.com/ to online-ads-request_at_o-a.com
