What web advertisers look for in Websites

shallow, not sticky - article from wired's cheif editor

[chiyo]

interesting article from Wired that argues that the "new" advertising model on the Web - a pop-up model pioneered by X10 cams (subliminal voyeur appeal), and on line casinos has changed the sort of site that such advertisers look to place in...

[wired.com...]

Basically it suggests that advertisers now are looking for sites that are not sticky, are shallow (more home page views as a percentage which is what advertisers want to advertise on), and attract 'dillentantes, not obsessives'. Stock quote and discussion boards are out as they attract people who stay for a long time, and news headlines sites that are visited for less time but still frequently are in -because home page views and unqiye visitors are the key metric.

So its offical. The dillentate is more easily spun a pitch than obsessives!

Interesting article, though i dont agree with all as I think it mainly applies to broad-based mass appeal sites, it bears serious thinking for those who rely on advertising for revenue.

[Drastic]

Interesting article. I, too, disagree on some points, like advertising having to be intrusive. I don't think it has to be, it's just easier than figuring out how to do it without being intrusive.

I also think they see sticky and community type sites as not working as well, and they don't on immediate, measurable conversions. This type of advertising still has its uses, it is just hard to gauge results. The corporate types can't see this on paper, so it is perceived as having less value than it does.

This also caught my eye:

Compared with television, this amounts to three times the reach per dollar.

Hello, major advertisers? Are you listening?

[brotherhood of LAN]

I was once a member of B**st, and although no doubt my site is not ideal for advertisers, I found that they would advertise any old tack on their members' sites. Usually, this would be at 0.50 CPM or less.

I don't even know if there is more emphasis on the sites that people advertise on. It just seems advertisers want to be more intrusive and get their message across - in any way possible. The article praises what X10 has done, but from what i've heard of X10, everyone is sick to the back teeth with that ad! Maybe its just users giving in! :)

IMO "what web advertisers look for in websites". Usually they are loooking for sites that are desperate enough to display ads at an abnormally low rate....with the creatives being just as ugly as the bottom line you get for displaying them :)

Thats just my experience of displaying advertisements site-wide......I am sure others have had better experiences (and revenue) from it. Simple text links is the only way I am going to advertise on future sites, or maybe those cute little buttons on WMW :) Anything like 268x80 or those dreaded "skyscrapers" are a no go for me

/end rant :)

[chiyo]

the key for me is that advertising on the internet has not become sophisticated enough to realise that targeting is the key. Now in your face ads may work for a short time.. but not a long time...

[Drastic]

I agree. Intrusion is easy - just force it upon us. Targeting is work and can be difficult to nail down. If advertisers could see the difference in the return, they would work on it. Unfortunately, I think we will be seeing more popups in the short term.

[Brad]

chiyo - very true about the targeting. The advertising departmenttts of most corporations seem to only want to deal with either a huge site like Yahoo or a banner ad network, neither of which are very targeted.

Either they or thier agencies do not seem to want to be bothered making deals with hundreds of smaller websites individually.

They want to reach mass audiences in a very short time. The sledgehammer approach.

[tbear]

Did anyone here buy an x10 camera from the pop-under?
<ducks quickly and swerves to left>

[Drastic]

>anyone here buy an x10

haha No, but I feel paranoid about them being everywhere now.

back on topic

Advertising can reach targeted markets without having to deal with small websites. If banner brokers could get their act together with the categories and themes in their system, it could work. It wouldn't be easy, but definitely doable.

[Eric_Jarvis]

I think site owners and developers are partially to blame here...I have seen many people request info on finding advertisers...usually they seem to be under the impression that the equation is hit -> money

I've long been convinced that it is far better to seek longer term sponsorship deals with appropriate companies...the rewards for both sides are far greater...less time is spent on administration and more on "selling product"...and it is far easier to target if you deal with a single site

maybe what is needed is a "web sponsorship agency" that can put people with advertising budgets in touch with the people running the web sites their customers use

[chiyo]

Eric I think you have hit the nail on the head. While all the ativity (and excitement - initially at least) with advertisers was on "getting to all those Web users.. Reach, unrefined and untargeted was the way they thought to make money quick. As the web matures however I think sponsorship is a model with far mroe potential - especially for niche sites and as corporate sites find it getting harder each month to get Web exposure throught search engines, and later to pay spiraling PPC charges.

The opportunity for an agency is there I feel. In the meantime, finding your own advertisers for niche sites will draw dividends. It needs some comitment on both sides, but soon people will realise that Web marketing requires that comitment.

[mysterynme]

I couldn't agree more chiyo and Eric.

The old DM rules apply online as much as offline. I would much rather pay top dollar for fewer leads from targeted, relevant websites than cast a wide net and rake them in through the back door trying to make a fast buck.

Our most successful sources of revenue are with independent websites we handcrafted deals with. We don't need to be the official "Corporate Sponsor", but we do seek that relationship because ultimately that's what it's all about.

Partnership is about working together (and the emphasis here is on 'working') so everyone benefits. Somehow in the heyday of this fresh, new medium that idea was lost. It's nice to see it resurface again.