Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘cpm’

Update 3/29/09: Danny Sullivan correctly pointed out to me that he is a publisher and an advertiser.  I’ll disagree on the idea that he is a “real user”, by which I meant “regular user”, because he is not nor I am.  We study websites, traffic and human behavior – we notice and ignore and react to things very differently than a user just flying by to get the latest news and views.  I do agree with Danny that my argument mostly matches his… thus, I’m only calling out Clemons argument.

Update 3/28/09: Techcrunch keeps stirring this up.  Now Danny Sullivan replies…

The most damaging part of both of their arguments is that neither one is arguing Clemons original argument and rebuttal mostly fail to convince his claims about the death of Internet Advertising.  He’s conclusions don’t match actual data and experience from the perspectives of an advertiser, a publisher nor really a regular user.

These points are not defensible without real data:

Users don’t trust ads
Users don’t want to view ads
Users don’t need ads
Ads cannot be the sole source of funding for the internet
Ad revenue will diminish because of brutal competition brought on by an oversupply of inventory, and it will be replaced in many instances by micropayments and subscription payments for content.
There are numerous other business models that will work on the net, that will be tried, and that will succeed.

In fact, let’s consider some counter examples:

Someone sold 4 million Snuggies based on ads.  Did the people who responded to those ads not trust the ads?  Their behavior shows they did enough to fork over $15 bucks for a blanket with holes in it.  The better statement is some users don’t trust some ads.

Users do want to view ads.  Millions of people love superbowl ads and actually seek them out online and on their TIVOs.  Online only ads that people do want to view include the millions of mini games they play, youtube videos they watch, contests they enter.  A better statement is that some users to want to view some ads, especially when the ads are not engaging, useful or catchy.

Users do need ads.  Search engines and social graphs can only show you information about things that are already popular/reached tipping point.  They cannot show you stuff just coming out of the labs.  Users need ads to learn about new and different products and services.  And the only way to introduce people to new things is put new things alongside already known things.

Ads are not the sole source of funding for the internet. Anyone who is claiming this is what web companies think clearly has not really studied the industry or worked at a web company and/or companies that extensively use the web in their business models.

Ad revenue will continue to grow in the long run.  As long as businesses need to sell more product, more ad revenue will go into the market.  The difference is that the ad spend is spread among more and more entities, so individual businesses will get less ad revenue.

Many other business models already work. and more will be created.  Selling apps, selling computer time, renting server space, selling subscriptions, donor models, barters, licensing, premium access…. I mean, gosh.  I don’t think we lack for business models that work.  The media is simply pointing to the high profile failures of big media companies that haven’t figured out to how to shoehorn it’s model into the internet way of doing things.

Once again we see that pundits rarely represent the real story.  They don’t know the price of milk. Just talking to people in the industry and summarizing the conversation is not enough to predict the end of online advertising.

See below for rest of my original response.

—————

Despite the impressive length,  a recent TechCrunch guest feature on the failure of internet advertising fails to reveal what’s really destroying the ad model online.  Clemons neither states what he claims is actually failing and doesn’t really prove it is. Alas, I will still attempt to refute the possible implications of his claim.

It is not a particularly insightful observation that “The problem is not the medium, the problem is the message, and the fact that it is not trusted, not wanted, and not needed”. Of course people don’t like being distracted with ad messages.  That’s always been the case, that’s why marketers have to pay for ad placement.  Nothing new here.

Advertising itself is not broken nor will ever go away.  As long as companies have products they need to push into market, they have to advertise, regardless of nature of the medium.  Play with the language and state definitions all you want – advertising will always be a part of our lives and media experiences.

What’s wrong with the business models of sites that rely on advertising is the pricing, not the actual idea of advertising.  Spending in terms of dollars is down in all mediums, certainly.  However, the amount of advertising we’re exposed to is likely still growing.   I have a long post on all sorts of data points on this topic here.  The short of it:  marketers have a growing number  advertising impressions out there, everyone know’s how well they perform and thus the pricing is coming way down from the relatively overpriced “older” advertising models in print, radio and tv.  This shrinking pricing model puts pressure on the business from a margin standpoint and so the less efficient businesses fail.

Yes, I generally hate banner, text, billboard ads and neon signs like everyone else. Except when I don’t.  And when I don’t that’s valuable to the company that paid for that placement and it’s valuable to me to be notified of something I might have missed.  We’re just arguing price.

Read Full Post »

Ah, TechCrunch.  You whipped out the old Excel and made the industry famous Up And To The Right Chart.

There is no strong conclusion to draw from this very limited data set.  The only piece of interesting data is:  of the big 4 media companies presented here only Google has any sustained growth and makes up the majority of 4th quarter growth.

The Industry is NOT doing well at all.  Time Warner and News Corp had major losses, and they have huge stakes in the internet.  Yahoo, MSN, AOL all suffered major losses.  Mid-tier Smaller publishers are getting crushed, and you won’t see that in any of this data or any emarketer reports.

If companies in the media industry want to actually survive, get real.  The existing ad model stinks and this recession just nailed the coffin shut.  Don’t take my word for it, run your own analysis. (Just for fun, go look at the ads running on Yahoo, MSN, Facebook, MySpace, Video game sites… let me know if you see a direct sold campaign.  Let me know if you find a non adnetwork ad tag…) Hurry and do it, because this is one short runway and there ain’t no Hudson river nearby.

The biggest advertisers in the game (financial services, computer companies, and auto makers) all took huge hits and continue to falter.  The ad budgets have been slashed and they aren’t moving product.  With that mix, media companies can’t do anything about their ad revenue streams if they don’t find other ways of making money.

No, I’m not doom and gloom.  This is all about reinvention and change and exploration.  The old model stinks and now we get to find out what to do next that is better for the user and the advertiser.  This is good.  It is also painful. It is not Up and To The Right, despite the fact that excel seems to only spit out charts of that type.

Read Full Post »

Ah, Ad Networks!

Glam gives us this juicy insight into what’s happening over in ad network world. It’s not going to be a fun 2009.

Despite the slower economy, Q4 was the strongest quarter we have had—we will end the year in a triple digit ad revenue growth rate year over year, and also very strong sequentially. We believe Glam is one of the few digital companies with this level of growth in revenue today. The reason is the focus on making our customers-—the agencies and brands successful online, being the number one for women, the scale of reach, premium inventory, targeting technology, custom solutions and our strong publisher network.

Unfortunately, despite their claim for best quarter ever, it’s not really that impressive.  Most online advertising in their categories went up due to holidays and more spend online each year.  It’s not Glam specific.  I see enough detailed data in this industry to know that Glam isn’t crushing it more than anyone else.

The reality is the ad networks and brand advertising online are in for a massive new year’s hang over.  The spends are spent.  The registers ring for a few more days. Then we’ll start to see what we really have.

Glam and other ad networks will lose business because publishers will slowly  get better with online sales and delivery (because they have to!) while the ad market softens in q1.  Glam’s eCPMs will be locked in a market rates because it’s buys and sells are massive and not really all that specialized.  Worse most (not all) of its network sites are bottom of the barrel publishers that will themselves struggle or go under.  In fact, 80% of them are complete SEO spam or worthless blogs and Google’s SearchWiki and other efforts are burying these sites.

(Note: You can tell when a networks traffic is mostly garbage when it hides the Site Affinities on Quantcast – those are the sites users visit in addition to the one publisher.  If you want to hide them, it usually means you are buying traffic or have lots of trashy SEO.)

Glam will not go away, but its not going to recover its valuation ever.  It has already built its business and it won’t be able to overhaul itself to whatever comes next.  Brand advertising online requires big brands and Glam won’t be able to hold on.  The race to win the advertisers is getting very tough now that the old publishers are racing as fast as possible to compete in social media and direct ad sales.

Lastly, Ad Sales is a talent driven business.  It’s about who your ad sales people know.  The technology, the publisher network, and the name isn’t really a differentiator.  So as the salaries and commissions come way down, the sales folks will bolt and take their network with them.  I’ve seen this happen at least 10 times in my direct experience and there are countless examples with Y! and others playing out right now.  Killer sales people keep the brand ad game in business and Glam doesn’t appear to be the place to earn the big bucks.  If you want proof, dig into the heads of sales and the top performing businesses, you’ll see revenue directly correlates.  It’s true in TV, Radio, Magazines and Online.

Maybe I’m wrong and Glam can buck the massive trend in brand ads taking a dive online (both in eCPM and overall buys…).  I doubt it and I won’t be buying my traffic from Glam any time soon.

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 369 other followers