Some excellent points Scott. Advertisers just keep choosing to shout at viewers with retarded dumbed-down message. All push, nothing to pull. If anyone can reposition this medium it's the G-gang.
Jean-Marie Le Ray
· 1 year ago
Hi Scott,
Great post! Would you authorize me to translate it in french and publishing it on my blog, a translation lab aiming to share great resources with french spoken people, obviously quoting and sourcing you? Kind regards,
Jean-Marie
Chris Wexler
· 1 year ago
Hmmm. In principle I agree. Most online display ads suck. In the most horrible and soul wrenching way imaginable. So now that is out of the way, let me tell you why Google can "punish bad ads", and Yahoo! can't.
With Paid Search the publisher and marketer have essentially the same objective -- get people to click to my site. (There are exceptions, as Google punishes advertisers, their customer, for prequalifing your click on more broadly applicable term, but I digress) Publisher (the search engines) and advertisers both want the same thing, and the monetization method supports that shared objective.
With display, that is not the case, in fact, publisher and advertiser are in basic conflict. The publisher DOESN'T want ads that draw clicks. Why? Because they can't sell the next impression to the next schmuck. The Publisher's natural desire to increase deep engagement on their site (unlike the quick touch of Google) so they can sell more is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to most marketers goals.
The other major difference is that advertiser in display have widely desperate goals. Some still care about clicks (really? but I digress) Most today care about some kind of conversion (sale, lead, etc). Some care about "brand engagement" with their rich media banners. Some just want their logo there, and if at all possible, bigger. Some have no idea why they are there at all other than the fact that they read in the WSJ this week that Facebook is popular with the kids. If your advertisers can't agree about what they want, how can you structure a system to pick what is and is not a "bad ad"?
The difference is symmetrical monetization, vs. asymmetrical monetization. Are the publisher and advertisers goals aligned? Can you monetize where those interest intersect? With Google, they intersect beautifully. With Yahoo!, not so much. The truth is, there is only so much you can do to help align these interest -- it is basically an outgrowth of the usage pattern of your site. I can think of three areas where advertising has symmetrical monetization -- Paid Search, Yellow Pages, and Newspaper Classifieds. (Notice that there are two DYING media in that list? Technology is taking the user base away from the utility that Yellow Pages and Classified used to have a monopoly on... but again I digress)
Keep up the great thought provoking posts!
AgentM
· 1 year ago
No one knows how this ad crap actually works. Put the awards spiel on repeat whenever anyone mentions ROI or any of those MBA favorites. They can't tell the difference between the know-nothing award-happy associations, so they all give cover. You should check at www.adagencysecretformula.com
All Comments
Great post! Would you authorize me to translate it in french and publishing it on my blog, a translation lab aiming to share great resources with french spoken people, obviously quoting and sourcing you?
Kind regards,
Jean-Marie
With Paid Search the publisher and marketer have essentially the same objective -- get people to click to my site. (There are exceptions, as Google punishes advertisers, their customer, for prequalifing your click on more broadly applicable term, but I digress) Publisher (the search engines) and advertisers both want the same thing, and the monetization method supports that shared objective.
With display, that is not the case, in fact, publisher and advertiser are in basic conflict. The publisher DOESN'T want ads that draw clicks. Why? Because they can't sell the next impression to the next schmuck. The Publisher's natural desire to increase deep engagement on their site (unlike the quick touch of Google) so they can sell more is DIAMETRICALLY opposed to most marketers goals.
The other major difference is that advertiser in display have widely desperate goals. Some still care about clicks (really? but I digress) Most today care about some kind of conversion (sale, lead, etc). Some care about "brand engagement" with their rich media banners. Some just want their logo there, and if at all possible, bigger. Some have no idea why they are there at all other than the fact that they read in the WSJ this week that Facebook is popular with the kids. If your advertisers can't agree about what they want, how can you structure a system to pick what is and is not a "bad ad"?
The difference is symmetrical monetization, vs. asymmetrical monetization. Are the publisher and advertisers goals aligned? Can you monetize where those interest intersect? With Google, they intersect beautifully. With Yahoo!, not so much. The truth is, there is only so much you can do to help align these interest -- it is basically an outgrowth of the usage pattern of your site. I can think of three areas where advertising has symmetrical monetization -- Paid Search, Yellow Pages, and Newspaper Classifieds. (Notice that there are two DYING media in that list? Technology is taking the user base away from the utility that Yellow Pages and Classified used to have a monopoly on... but again I digress)
Keep up the great thought provoking posts!