Should Advertising Be Based On The Value Of The Site Or The Visitor?
from the but,-of-course... dept
Adam Penenberg's latest column at Wired News looks at the plan someone has to do a bit of advertising arbitrage by using some tracking cookies to note that people who leave popular sites are still worth the same amount to advertisers when they go to a less popular site. In other words, if you're at a popular site that can command high fees for advertising, and then move to a small site that commands a tiny fraction of the cost -- does that make sense? You're the same set of eyeballs, so the theory suggests that your views are equally worthwhile. That makes some sense, so, one guy has patented the idea of following where you go and continuing to advertise the higher rates at smaller sites, while splitting some of that revenue with the larger sites. Of course, it's unclear why this is patentable. It's really just an implementation of tracking cookies, which have been around forever. However, more importantly, it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of economics. It assumes that the value of the ads on the popular site are is the proper value of the visitor's eyeballs on the ad. That's not the case. The reason certain sites get higher CPMs on ads is because they're more effective overall -- whether it's due to reach, context or placement of the ad. It's not necessarily based on the value of the individual visitor. So, assuming this plan worked, it's likely that the ad rates for many of these larger sites would fall -- not exactly an exciting idea for them. They might be able to make some of it backup in the residual ad revenue from other sites, but it's going to make it difficult to convince them to take part. They currently benefit from the CPM model that suggests they deserve high CPMs for having a lot of traffic. Besides, if advertisers or publishers are really concerned about the value of each individual visitor, wouldn't they just use a cost-per-click system, which values every clicker equally, with no bias towards the site it's on?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This does not make sense
Plus the whole concept is flawed. Somebody explain supply and demand to this reporter. The idea of InfoWorld charging $102 CPM and "Site B" charging .20 CPM means advertisers value InfoWorld 500 times more then Site B. If advertising managers aren't doing the math they are fools.
[ link to this | view in thread ]