Comments on: The Demise of Online Advertising Is Upon Us

By: mlgreen8753

mlgreen8753 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:07:58 +0000

VideoEgg sounds similar to what other video ad networks are doing and I don't see a unique selling point that's going to give it an edge over the competition. Adwido, on the other hand, offers a free package setting itself apart from the other video advertising networks.

By: Is The Future Of Advertising Public Relations | Social Media Explorer

Is The Future Of Advertising Public Relations | Social Media Explorer — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:01:10 +0000

[...] again. I’ve said before I think a new way of advertising to customers is coming. From, “The Demise Of Online Advertising Is Upon Us,” on Sept. 8: We have to come up with something [...]

By: bbowenjr

bbowenjr — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:28:55 +0000

Great article Jason, it will be interesting to watch these new performance models evolve. We are putting our eggs in www.Boomja.com - enabling subject experts to create deep comprehensive vertical search directories to help channel targeted audiences to information and advertisers. It's a great first step to building more qualified communities of prospects.

Buff Bowen
www.Boomja.com

By: JasonFalls

JasonFalls — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:03:39 +0000

Agreed, but you prove the point with your response – the metric has to change. Even if your ad's purpose is watching or playing a game, or buying something right from the ad, you're providing a level of engagement that most ads don't. Still, there's not enough proof in even those ideas, which deliver engagement but don't deliver well on engagement with the brand, that the rate of participation is worth the effort.

Online advertising has to change fundamentally as advertisers wise up and realize the consumer demands a higher degree of something — engagement, humor, interest, curiosity — from advertising in order for them to be effective.

Thanks for the perspective.

By: IDAMan

IDAMan — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:50:47 +0000

You both are missing a key point…a key point that we in the “rich media” business tend to overlook.

The point that we should all focus on is that not every ad is designed to have the intended action be a click. Some ads are designed to have users watch a video or play a game. Other ads allow users to purchase items right from within the banner. Still other ads allow users to upload and share UGC.

At the end of the day, those who continue to measure success of campaigns strictly on the CTR will ultimately fail to do well for their clients and their brands.

By: How To Build Your Personal Brand | Social Media Explorer

How To Build Your Personal Brand | Social Media Explorer — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:49:27 +0000

[...] The Demise of Online Advertising Is Upon Us [...]

By: jasonbaer

jasonbaer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:45:43 +0000

Absolutely we want to do better than 5%. But increasingly, as the Web matures, advertisers juxtapose it with other media outlets. And to suggest that TV, radio, print, direct mail, and outdoor routinely do better than 5% is just wrong. We should absolutely strive to do better, but the truth is that online – while certainly flawed – is already performing much better than traditional in many cases.

In fact, I just put up a post on Friday about Kellogg stating that online is producing better ROI than traditional for cereal – not a category that leaps to mind when you think about typical online advertisers.

By: JasonFalls

JasonFalls — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:33:53 +0000

Thanks Jason. As you probably know, I enjoy it most when commentors challenge me on points. I would agree with several of your points and think online advertising is, in many ways, the future of advertising because it's more targetable, trackable and less expensive. But I do think that something is going to have to change the model before we can successfully expect that. While the numbers won't indicate it now, the on-the-street sensibility I've shared in the post is that advertisers are going to begin demanding better performance, better ROI because of those factors of targetability and trackability. As a result, 5% or less isn't going to cut it soon. If we don't push pay-per-engagement or pay-per-performance thinking, we as agencies or media outlets will never be able to deliver numbers they'll demand.

Bottom line – 5% return is pitiful. We can do better. And we should.

By: JasonFalls

JasonFalls — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:29:12 +0000

Thanks Matt. I think the CTR in some niche industries can get pretty high (15-20%) but I also think the pay-per-click artists who responded may believe their own bullshit and estimate their numbers a little on the high end. I don't have reason to doubt them, other than folks like you who throw out 5-7 is good. I've always thought if you're getting around 5%, you shouldn't complain too much. Still, I think advertisers will continue to expect more and 5% won't cut it much longer. We've got to come up with a better system.

Thanks for the comments.

By: jasonbaer

jasonbaer — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:54:44 +0000

Jason I agree with the ridiculousness of the "sky is falling" predictions. ALL other media would be delighted to have a 5% growth rate, much less 20%+.

Where I don't agree with you is the notion that online advertising doesn't work or is in decline. The trap you are falling into is the idea that all online ads must generate immediately measurable clicks and conversions. While the Web has enabled unbelievable advances in direct marketing and measured response due to its inherent trackability, the growth of the online ad channel will not ultimately be in that area.

Instead, companies like Pointroll, Eyeblaster, VideoEgg, et al will enable brands and their agencies to increasingly communicate in an effective and engaging way with consumers via hyper-targeted rich media ad executions. Many (most?) of these ads will be for brands that are not purchasable per se online. CPG, Auto, Financial, etc.

Once the Web can have brand impact (and many studies by the IAB show that it can) that nears that of TV, the floodgates will open, and advertisers will take more and more dollars from broadcast and move them online. Online is less expensive, more targetable, and more trackable (even for offline products).

Consequently, the competition for online ad dollars isn't direct mail or other DM vehicles - it's TV. As such, I believe the industry is pursuing the right path, and major changes will neither be necessary, nor realized with the exception of more branded content and sponsorships rather than banners.

Over the shorter term, digital marketing of all types (including search) will continue to steal market share from other tactics, due to the conversion optimization elements you describe. I have a post about that:

"5 Reasons Why Digital Marketing Will Thrive in a Recession"
http://is.gd/1nkr

All the best,

Jason Baer
Convince & Convert - Training agencies on digital marketing
http://www.convinceandconvert.com/convince-conv...

By: sinotechian

sinotechian — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:43:49 +0000

Jason,

Liked your post but wanted to express my surprise at the click through rates you said your twitter followers stated were normal. In terms of click-through you are indeed correct it depends on position, creative, format, surrounding content etc…. however with all these factors set at most desirable I would be extremely surprised to get a CTR above 5-7% (on a content network most networks would support the <1% CTR). In a search context, 3-5% is normal. I am working in Asia where I believe we see similar CTR's to that of north America and Europe.

Any other comments about CTR's… I am interested in know if others support my claims

Regards
Matt