Comments on: Blogonomics: Revenue per page A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Soup Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:50:34 +0000 I’d like to see those studies. I think the devaluation of online ad sales has more to do with providing the buy side with so much tracking detail that they will pay next to nothing for what isn’t interacted with.

Meanwhile they sell television ads for hundreds of thousands of dollars to an audience they assume is watching, while they pay far less for guaranteed viewers because the video was delivered over IP rather than cable, broadcast, or satellite. Did I mention you can’t skip through a Hulu ad like you can the one on your DVR?

Digital ad sales need to wake up and stop devaluing their product.

By: najdorf Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:11:43 +0000 soup: I’m pretty sure that marketing people aren’t as clueless as you describe. I’ve seen studies that readers retain more from print ads/develop stronger impressions from them. If an online ad isn’t generating clicks and sales it probably isn’t doing anything. And if you make it as intrusive as a TV ad people click away or avoid the site entirely.

By: Soup Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:50:00 +0000 How is a banner ad that 3 million people a month view and not click on any less valuable than an ad in a magazine or a newspaper? It’s not. So why are digital media salespeople devaluing their product?

The reason why very few can make money on content alone is because the people selling the product have some warped idea that the product is less valuable than the format that was once very profitable in a print format.

Giving advertisers additional metrics around their ads shouldn’t allow them to dictate a price so low that digital media as a business is unsustainable. The fact that their ad was even loaded on someones screen is valuable enough, to provide demographics on top of that is something print could never do with nearly as much detail. The fact that even large websites can’t profit off that fact is a failure of the business side, not the content creators.

By: velobabe Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:09:43 +0000 felix, can i call you felix?
you got it right.
to me the consumer or reader, or whatever, it is about the message, not the messenger.

your articles are so above and beyond anything written
@ BI.
no comparison. totally different content. they are trying to cover a very wide spectrum and i don’t think they are pulling it off at all. too, scant. readership acknowledges this via their comments. moving similarly close to HuffPo. i wouldn’t even want to click on comments on that blog, whoa 3,5000. WTF. you got an intimate cafe here, keep it.

MetLife FedEx Amex/OPEN banners. i never even noticed, have become quite immune to these, except they add color to a usually black and white mundane page.
just my 2¢s

By: johnb78 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:46:56 +0000 I’m not sure that’s the right way to look at this one. I spent last year at an online and print trade media business (the print side was established, the online side was fledgling).

The rate-card for online was based on price discrimination. Published rates were aimed solely at inbound leads and random prospects with more money than sense (Middle East exhibitions, organisations trying to spend their annual grants, and so on), and were well above standard industry rates. All account-managed clients paid well below the rate card (well, normally they bought one thing on the rate card and were given various other packages for free). The absolute industry leaders were given ads and storefronts for a nominal fee, so that we could get their competitors to sign up as well.

This wasn’t because our salespeople were inept – it was a deliberate revenue maximisation strategy. No idea what Blodget’s up to, but it could be something similar.