('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
GREG KUDASZ WROTE:
>From a sellers standpoint, I don't see how this model can
>make advertising revenues signifigant to MY investment.
>Does Flycast's affiliates understand this is how their sales
>department is pitching the network? Is $6 CPM where the
>small and medium sites are heading to stay? How do the
>smaller guys get representation to sell their site instead
>of being an anonymous part of a Site Neutral network?
The intent seems to be to offer more money than a small to
mid-size site would make from a network such as Burst or
Valueclick, so that's where Flycast does fit in. If you hit
the 300k/day mark for ads, you might want to check into 24/7
or Doubleclick (not before, or they'll zap your rates down
to a point where Flycast is 2-3 times better), as that seems
to be the point where sites go from small to mid-size into
the larger area. For sites below that, though, Flycast is a
safe bet (and is better than most of its competition).
Flycast's pitch seems to be aimed at letting people know
that they don't represent their site in particular, but
rather the network as a whole (which is made clearer when
you consider they represent 1400 sites). However, by quoting
ROC and ROS rates, they are hoping that people see there is
some potential for targetting. Unfortunately, there is
limited call for it from advertisers since the lower rates
are more attractive to them, and Flycast is unwilling to
push the issue of targetting to most ad buyers who want
ROI-focused (in other words, untargetted) ads.
I think you'll notice that many ad networks do not meet
their RON rates on average. Thus, many sites are likely to
expect less than $6CPM on average. However, this issue isn't
just restricted to Flycast. It seems that many of the larger
ad networks (24/7, Doubleclick, etc.) are giving advertisers
breaks on rates. As a result, sellers are receiving less
than anticipated revenues, and the first ones to be affected
are those who are selling smaller amounts of traffic.
If you're thinking about offering 100% of your traffic to
anyone, you need to consider what the implications of that
are. I think you'll find that working with multiple ad
networks is the best bet because you get all the services
that everyone offers without being specifically tied down to
one revenue source. No one ad network is the end-all company
that offers everything a publisher could ever want
(particularly smaller publishers), and the odds of anyone
being that any time soon are less than slim. Avoiding
exclusivity, lengthy contracts, and/or strict requirements
is something small to mid-size sites should be focused on.
For your last question, it's definitely a difficult issue
for smaller sites. Unless you've got a large existing sales
force and/or are willing to invest heavily in getting your
own targetted ads, you will be lumped together with other
sites. You'll still get relatively good representation, but
the idea of targetting generally is reserved for those sites
who have the traffic to back up the requests of higher
rates, and what they offer varies greatly from one ad
network to the next.
Shane Sacobie
VGF.Net
------------------------------------------------------------
Goto
http://www.vgf.net for the latest gaming info, updated daily.
Received on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 22:41:12 CDT
