You gotta love James Carville, stupid. Legions of writers have inserted that tagline.
So here am I reading something on TheStreet.com, about the NYT’s online woes, as growth at its site and About.com slows down. And I am thinking to myself, why is there no ad on this page?
Of course, I was on the third page of an article… third page? No one wants sloppy seconds, let alone trashy thirds (yes, just made that up). While the “are pageviews dead” debate drags on, I think the better question is are publishers doing all they can to maximize the value of their real estate? Think about it, if I get to the second or third page of an article, I am really into the topic, so doesn’t the value of every incremental ad impressions increase?
That’s why I never sell aggressive frequency capped campaign, of say 1 ad per 24 hours, a user sees your ad and then poof! It disappears. Sorry, come back tomorrow. That’s retarded, I always urge media buyers to go for 3 imps per 24 hours, otherwise I don’t even take their money because they will waste it. Which raises another point, even if pageviews do disappear, the act of buying inventory is at least hitherto a function of where the ads go, thus impressions, thus pageviews.
In other words, trust me, no publisher wants to sell on impressions, it’s dangerous. We all want to sell off sponsorships. But advertisers don’t want that either.
I understand the need for something more, but critics of pageviews can’t have their cake and eat it too, on the one hand saying “comScore, that’s irrelevant,” only to jump out and say “look, told you, comScore says pageviews will be de-emphasized.”
These two are the major issues going ahead:
- Managing inventory, however it is measured, to maximie the value of your content.
- Determining a win-win ad structure.
Those who can master these two will win in the next round. A lot of the mojo behind WatchMojo.com is about doing just that to please both viewers and advertisers.
Subscribe: