Forum Moderators: phranque
In traditional media, the advertising model used by broadcast, newspapers and many magazines stands our intuitive approach on its head.
1. Who is the client? It's NOT the reader, it's the advertiser.
2. What is the product being sold? It's NOT the content, it's the readership - which is sold to the advertisers. The content is just a means to an end.
This is an important part of the reason that advertising models have had such a lousy success rate on the web. Most websites that attempt to support themselves through advertising aren't clear that advertisers are their real clients and traffic is their real product.
Throw in the precise metrics that the web enables, and the picture gets more complex. If the print world had to justify such precisely measured response rates to their advertising, I think they'd be struggling too.
Print and broadcast media have long understood that advertisiers are their clients. Look at product placements in movies, or the obvious plugs that fuel TV Talk Shows. The so-called content is disguised advertising. On the web, the parallel situation would be selling advertisers a whole page of content, or a whole set of pages.
in this medium advertising can, and does, interfere with the user base...insistent pop ups, over animated ads, slow loading pages...all lose visitors
that's why I'm convinced that a sponsorship model is more appropriate to any high traffic site with good content
Look at the magazine world. There are extremes - small "labors of love" that barely run any ads. They build a targeted readership that really cares about their content, and you never see big subscription discounts from these journals.
In the middle is a sort of mixed model, where you almost always must pay for a subscription, but deep discounts are often available, because most of the income is generated by selling their readership's attention to advertisers.
The other extreme would be the trade mag, which almost never gets a paid subscription. But you've got to take their content with a huge grain of salt, because the magazine is totally dependent on advertisers, and they walk a tightrope trying to give useful content to hold the readership and not aggravate sponsors while doing it.
One of my most successful clients sort of "sponsors" their own website. To date, the website is not at all about sales. It has many hundreds of content pages that really serve their targeted readers, with nary a sales pitch to be found. So the website is mostly a kind of branding device.
They can't measure the website's influence on sales very precisely - but they entered a new field 3 years ago, and today they dominate over the traditional players. They've become a must-read for people in their field, and most new customers mention the website as a major factor in deciding their purchase.
One of the reasons I'm thinking so hard about this, is that this client is looking to monetize their site more directly, and I'm concerned that they might undermine what they've created.
(edited by: tedster at 3:51 pm (utc) on Mar. 28, 2002)
I do chuckle sometimes when I read the visitor-is-sacrosanct theory. No, the visitor is extremely malleable. In other recent threads we've touched briefly on some of the mechanics involved, like shepherding, or not having onsite search. It's definitely possible to strike a balance and make money.
Not showing off, but basically they misunderstood the power of the "readership" apart from the content, as Tedster is saying. Readership grows gradually but steadily. They become loyal and your brand gains credibility. Pop ups, bug banner ads etc will devastate the brand of a content site.
Good news is that we are now getting great interest in our small text box ads. OK we didnt copy from Google, I think we copied from some Open source PHP layouts, but they look similar. No hassle either, they are agreeing to a monthly quote from us based on an estimate of exposures.. not even click throughs. They are happy that not having all the paraphenalia of tracking clicks that pages load quicker. Then again our sites have limited competition, so bear that in mind - Im sure they would prefer click tracking and real time reports of they could get it. They have to be highly targeted to our highly targeted readership, but you can offer a premium for such slots, especially if you more or less "own" some keywords.
Yup. I started those this year, abandoning buttons and tiles. I use dhtml and css to make a distinctive, bordered box. (I sell flat rate, averaging around $10 CPM, but can go as high as $15.)
Tedster, I wouldn't be afraid of your client's drive to monetize but if there's a "off" taste injected into the site it can definitely kill it. You really have to develop a keen editor's perspective, someone that knows the visitor in and out. In the right environment, ads are content and they actually attract visitors.
>did you come out of the starting gate with this buisness model, or did you evolve to it?
It evolved, very commercial at first... but after a few months I switched to a set-up very similar to the one you describe above, a content site which my real estate company sponsored. I now treat that real estate company just like any other advertiser and sell ads and leads to its competitors.
So we started introducing banner ads on the calendar - not at the top of the page, but between individual months. That's working out OK so far.
We also began selling pop-up info for the people who are publicizing events, but these are "opt-in" pop-ups. Their free calendar listing gets a paid "details" link which opens a pop-up page when clicked.
I'm urging the client to go at this gradually, because they have been successful with their original model.
That was mine, too. I've since turned those over to house ads. I didn't like the creative being submitted and fixing it wasn't worth my time. Which brings up another point, ads/sponsorship must pass a tough sniff test now. I turn down requests to advertise fairly often. I also won't take contracts, if a sponsor turns out to be a poor player I pull the plug.
1) Expectations that are too high. What's the response rate for the typical magazine ad, newspaper ad, or TV commercial? How many people who see an ad for Coca-Cola or American Airlines pick up the phone to call an 800 number and buy something?
2) Ignorant publishers. Too many commercial Web sites, both large and small, clutter their pages with multiple ads. Then they generate even more clutter by adding pop-ups or pop-unders. They just don't understand that you can't get NEW YORKER or PLAYBOY ad rates when your publication looks like a weekly shopper.
3) Inappropriate advertising. Example: In recent visits to About.com's European travel sites, I've found ads for South Carolina tourism, an Internet casino, and dating services. What do these have to do with European travel? What kind of clickthrough rate can the South Carolina tourism department expect on sites about France or Italy? And how many European travel advertisers are going to feel comfortable having their banners or skyscrapers accompanied by ads for Internet casinos or dating services?
Side note: Advertisers and the ad networks aren't helping matters. When I launched my European travel site last fall, I joined the Burst Media and FastClick networks. It didn't take long to discover that hardly any relevant ads were available, and that I had to choose between running ads that were of no interest to my readers or running no ads at all. In the end, I chose to stick with affiliate links, and my revenue per thousand page views was in the neighborhood of $10 the last time I calculated it. This may not be a solution for all sites, but it's an approach that can work if you have the right topic, are reaching a targeted audience, and can find suitable affiliate programs.
I would like to advertise on this site. My company is [bleep] located in [bleep]. Our toll free number is [bleep]. Our web site is [bleep]. Please give me a call ASAP as Spring is here and is our busiest season.
Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you!
>Advertisers and the ad networks aren't helping matters
I couldn't agree more. If I had a banner network that could give me, as publisher, access to specialized, targeted inventory I could easily do 4% CTR on "out-dated, obsolete, tuned-out" 468x60 banners.
