Re: What a web newbie taught me about banners

From: Jim Meskauskas <jimm_at_mediasmithinc.com>
Date: Sun 12 Sep 1999 12:27:26 -0700

BEN CATHERS WROTE:
>>CPM is soon going to be worthless CPC is going to be the way
>>to go.

TO WHICH JIM REARDON REPLIED:
> ...I'd never sell CPC banner ads on my site.
>
> I've seen CPC ads pawned off as a way to pay for "results".
> Call me crazy, but to a good portion of the websites, a
> click isn't a *result*. A member, a regular visitor, a
> download, a sale... those are *results*. One website
> could send 100 clicks equaling the results of 100,000 from
> another site.
>
> Also, for CPC ads, click-ratio is based on the quality of
> creative. Unless you're paying me to design your ad, your
> website, and your marketing campaign, my revenue shouldn't
> have anything to do with it. You want my visitors to see
> your ad? You pay for it. Make the best of the opportunity.


It is very interesting to hear publishers say they would
never do CPC deal on their sites, only to see, months down
the road, as they sit on tons of unsold inventory, CPC may
be the best thing for them. CPC deals should be looked at
similar to that of stand-by tickets on airlines. Once that
plane takes off, you can never sell that empty seat again.
Though I agree that CPC deals are not a true "pay for
results" model, they do serve to eliminate ineffective
impressions in a campaign with a direct-response objective.
Being able to pay CPC is like a direct mailer only paying
for those individuals who opened their mailed assets. As
for other "pay for results" deals, I'm with Mr. Reardon.
That creates conditions for potentially shifting the onus on
the publisher, often times laying the burden of bad
creative, weak benefits message, or just plain low-interest
category product, at the feet of publishers.

Jim Meskauskas
jimm_at_mediasmithinc.com





Received on Sun Sep 12 1999 - 14:27:26 CDT