One thing that has fascinated me is the battle between Media Outlets and Brands/Advertisers over ratings and measurements. Whether this is online or airwaves. Brands pay a fee for each thousand people an Ad is viewed or heard by. It is in the best interest of Media Outlets to amplify the numbers even if they aren't accurate. Brands willingly pay for each person reached but they get ripped off if they pay for phantom contact.
Measurement is getting better, BUT it is still all estimation. Until we have big brother in every room, or wherever we go, proving we actually viewed or heard something, measuring will be an estimate. I sure hope and pray we never have big brother.
So this means Media Outlets and Brands have to compromise, and why ratings services like Arbitron and Nielsen exist. The problem right now is as measurement gets more accurate audience numbers drop, causing revenue loss to Media Outlets. This is fair, but any business that can lose revenue is going to fight to keep that revenue, whether that revenue is ethical or not.
I think he biggest areas of audience inflation are for TV and for online measurements. So many folks are multitasking now. I watched the Olympics last night while watching State of Play on my Laptop. I had the sound off the TV and would pause the movie when I saw the snowboarders ready at the gate. The commercials played in my room. I was in my room, I neither heard or saw most of them. Yet NBC made money on me, and the Advertisers lost money on me. Or when someone falls asleep with the TV on. Advertisers are paying for that sleeping person.
As for online I truly think clicks are the best measurement. Time spent on a website is truly today a bunch of crap sorry to be blunt. With all the browsers offering tabs and he ability to be on a website live, with it hidden from your views for hours upon hours, time spent is a ridiculous measurement. But Facebook pumps the time spent endlessly, trying to make it look like people spend all this time on their site when I bet the reality is 10-20% of their claim. At least clicks can't be fibbed!
But this leads to another dilemma my inquiries have never been answered because those I ask would never, ever want to admit this is going on. Currently Firefox has 22% of the browser market. 700,000 Firefox users download the Ad Blocking software that blocks 95% of all digital ads...and even blocks search engine paid search results (like Google's Ad Words). At least with Google I am pretty sure that you only get charged if you click through the link. But Banner Ads? What if my browser blocks them, but they were still served to my screen. Does a Brand get charged for that? They shouldn't be, but no Ad Network has responded to my question about this. On top of the Ad Blocker issue because I use Windows and have had virus infections launched from java script and flash before, no scripts run on my browser unless I unlock a website. Which means none of the Ad Networks themselves ever run on my machine. They still serve Ads to specific sites I have unblocked/Unlocked because 1] they are trusted and 2] for free content I feel this is fair.
So measurement wars will not end anytime soon. I think honesty needs to be the motto for Media Outlets because Brands/Advertisers want to reach people, they just don't want to pay for phantom contacts, or feel fleeced by their vendor.
Showing posts with label digital ad networks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label digital ad networks. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Where Print went wrong...sorry Digital Ad Networks
Print has had a double whammy when it comes to revenues. One is their fault which was free news sites with digital ad networks, the second was out of their control - Craig's List which killed the Classified Ad revenue source.
But first I want to do a quick review of the past vs. the present.
Before the Internet if you wanted news most major cities had 1-2 newspapers, 3 major TV networks that did world, national and local news, and the radio. They competed within each market for eyes and ears and were pretty much protected from non-local competition.
With the Internet what has evolved is that every news source competes now globally. Using my own example growing up my family watched the TV news outside NY City and we subscribed to Newsday. I moved to LA and subscribed to the LA times and also watched Network News. Over time I now read the Digital Versions of the LA Times, NY Times, Economist, BBC, Washington Post, and Huffington Post. I never watch Network TV News. I do watch the Daily Show live and online. I also listen to news Podcasts from the BBC, NPR, and Economist. I read the print versions of Business Week, Fortune, and Rolling Stone. I also read local Entertainment Papers like LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc. All this accounts for 85% of my news consumption.
So now print competes world wide. And seriously I have estimated an industry maximizes competition and productivity when there isn't 500,000 competitors. So there will be a shake out eventually where many cities have no major print newspaper such as San Francisco, Boston, and Denver already deal with.
Prior to the Internet we all agreed to pay for print versions of news sources. Then came the Internet and this idea of Digital Ad Networks evolved. By not charging a subscription for Online viewing of news they lost a revenue stream. Now granted if I pay $0.50 for a print paper that is just subsidizing the true cost of printing and distributing. The rest comes from Print Ads. So removing the physical print and distribution they could charge less than the $0.50 and break even on that portion.
But the Digital Ad Networks promoted a lie to the Print Industry. That their Ad Distribution Networks are better than Static Ads on Print Pages (like a pdf would be). And this was the huge revenue killer. They lost control of this part of their revenue stream. Computer OEM's, Software OEM's, and Internet providers make no extra money if Ads are blocked, like Firefox allows. 700,000 downloads of Firefox's Ad Blocker Plus happen each week for the browser with 22% market share. Viruses have people fearful of interactive ads. I myself use No Script which prevents Java from running on websites unless I allow it. So while I disable Ad Blocker on sites I get free content from, the actual Ad Networks are all prevented from running on my browser because I have had virus infections before.
Since all the players mentioned before are out for themselves. Print has been left high and dry.
The true solution for this would be that Newspapers etc charge a nominal fee for a subscription. And their pages served to E-Readers should be static with Ads just like Print Ads. This way when I read Page 4 of the NY Times it views just like the hard copy of the paper would. This would guarantee impressions and increase CPM's. Why should a Brand or Marketer pay more, if 1] their Ad is blocked by 1 of 5 browsers? 2] They have even less proof an Ad was seen.
I know the rebuttal. Static Ads will prevent click throughs reducing the increased value and creativity they offer. But seriously now. Click Throughs? You mean the 20 average per 10,000 page views? But seriously now. Most of us use a search engine to find website sites, type in URL's directly, get linked via social media, or we go direct via a book mark. Leave your creative interactive consumer engagement effort for your web site. Make it easy to get there. And boom increased R.O.I.
But first I want to do a quick review of the past vs. the present.
Before the Internet if you wanted news most major cities had 1-2 newspapers, 3 major TV networks that did world, national and local news, and the radio. They competed within each market for eyes and ears and were pretty much protected from non-local competition.
With the Internet what has evolved is that every news source competes now globally. Using my own example growing up my family watched the TV news outside NY City and we subscribed to Newsday. I moved to LA and subscribed to the LA times and also watched Network News. Over time I now read the Digital Versions of the LA Times, NY Times, Economist, BBC, Washington Post, and Huffington Post. I never watch Network TV News. I do watch the Daily Show live and online. I also listen to news Podcasts from the BBC, NPR, and Economist. I read the print versions of Business Week, Fortune, and Rolling Stone. I also read local Entertainment Papers like LA Weekly, Village Voice, etc. All this accounts for 85% of my news consumption.
So now print competes world wide. And seriously I have estimated an industry maximizes competition and productivity when there isn't 500,000 competitors. So there will be a shake out eventually where many cities have no major print newspaper such as San Francisco, Boston, and Denver already deal with.
Prior to the Internet we all agreed to pay for print versions of news sources. Then came the Internet and this idea of Digital Ad Networks evolved. By not charging a subscription for Online viewing of news they lost a revenue stream. Now granted if I pay $0.50 for a print paper that is just subsidizing the true cost of printing and distributing. The rest comes from Print Ads. So removing the physical print and distribution they could charge less than the $0.50 and break even on that portion.
But the Digital Ad Networks promoted a lie to the Print Industry. That their Ad Distribution Networks are better than Static Ads on Print Pages (like a pdf would be). And this was the huge revenue killer. They lost control of this part of their revenue stream. Computer OEM's, Software OEM's, and Internet providers make no extra money if Ads are blocked, like Firefox allows. 700,000 downloads of Firefox's Ad Blocker Plus happen each week for the browser with 22% market share. Viruses have people fearful of interactive ads. I myself use No Script which prevents Java from running on websites unless I allow it. So while I disable Ad Blocker on sites I get free content from, the actual Ad Networks are all prevented from running on my browser because I have had virus infections before.
Since all the players mentioned before are out for themselves. Print has been left high and dry.
The true solution for this would be that Newspapers etc charge a nominal fee for a subscription. And their pages served to E-Readers should be static with Ads just like Print Ads. This way when I read Page 4 of the NY Times it views just like the hard copy of the paper would. This would guarantee impressions and increase CPM's. Why should a Brand or Marketer pay more, if 1] their Ad is blocked by 1 of 5 browsers? 2] They have even less proof an Ad was seen.
I know the rebuttal. Static Ads will prevent click throughs reducing the increased value and creativity they offer. But seriously now. Click Throughs? You mean the 20 average per 10,000 page views? But seriously now. Most of us use a search engine to find website sites, type in URL's directly, get linked via social media, or we go direct via a book mark. Leave your creative interactive consumer engagement effort for your web site. Make it easy to get there. And boom increased R.O.I.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
