|
|
|
|
 |
March/April 2010 News |
 |
|
|
|
|
The Death of Truth?
Recent drama in the publishing world has refocused attention on the problem of the quality and integrity of content on the Internet.
Web Video Audience OK With More Ads, Report
The Web researcher released new research on Tuesday (Mar. 23) at the Advertising Research Foundation’s Annual Convention + Expo in New York which found that people who watch TV shows on the Web are far more tolerant of ads than perhaps once thought, and would actually stand for more clutter.
Sorry, Video Content Can't Be Free
As the cost of delivering video continues to get cheaper every year and video syndication to devices and platforms continues to grow, it seems more and more people are under the impression that access to premium video content should be free.
|
|
|
|
 |
COUNCIL BULLETIN |
|
|
|
| |
Dear friends of the ICSC,
Believe it or not, fall is just around the corner, and we have already started planning for the next ICSC Summit. As members, friends, and former attendees, we’re reaching out to you first for ideas, suggestions, tips, or any other contribution that you care to make. Our goals are big -- we want this event to have more attendees, more content, and more sparkle than last year, so no thought on your part is discouraged.
Feel free to start a dialogue with us by e-mailing info@internetsyndication.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Destination Relevance
It’s generally accepted in media circles -- especially digital media circles -- that there’s an inverse relationship between reach and relevance. In other words, relevance decreases as reach increases, and vice versa. Each additional layer of targeting technology decreases reach, increases costs and further betrays the promise of affordable digital scale. In short, relevance in the traditional online advertising model is essentially non-scalable and far too costly for all but the largest advertisers.
The cost to attain and maintain site relevance is even more prohibitive for publishers -- the true canaries in the media coal mine -- and explains why so many brand-name publishers now teeter on the brink of insolvency: They simply can’t afford the price tag of relevance. Again, the inverse relationship applies: The more highly targeted inventory they sell, the faster they go out of business. The promise and weight of digital scale simply turns against them.
The same inverse relationship between reach and relevance applies to the online ad networks as well: The more targeted they become, the fewer consumers they can reach and the more it costs to reach them. Unfortunately for both the publishers and the ad networks, they cannot effectively pass along the increased costs to the advertisers in the form of rate card increases -- at least not when the explosion of high-speed bandwidth offers advertisers so many discretionary media options to choose from, and certainly not when average CTRs hover at statistical zero. The results are entirely predictable: The publishers and the networks are compelled to eat too much of the increased costs themselves, and insolvency is never more than a click or two away.
The hunt for site relevancy increases costs across the entire media food chain and decreases reach. It’s time to rethink and relocate the entire relevancy argument. Let’s begin by asking ourselves a series of simple questions.
1. What isn’t relevant to consumers? If the digital era has taught us anything, it’s that no one wants more ads and that everyone is equipped to avoid them. Ads, especially online, are simply not relevant to consumers. No one wants them, and our trillion-dollar investment in seamless user interfaces simply won’t tolerate the intrusion they require to function effectively.
2. What is relevant to consumers? Content: information, entertainment or -- ideally -- a judicious combination of both. Whereas no one goes anywhere to see the ads, everyone goes everywhere specifically to see or hear the content. The difference between ads and content is the same idea differentiating ammo and bait, hunting and fishing: Ads push, content pulls.
3. Where is relevance relevant? We know that no one wants more ads, no matter how relevant, and we know that everyone wants more content. Common sense therefore dictates that we shift our search for relevance from site-based advertising and look for it instead where it more rightfully belongs: on the advertiser’s sponsored destination page. The answer is not to immerse a more relevant ad in relevant content on a publisher’s page; the answer is to immerse the content on the advertiser’s branded destination page.
In summary, ads aren’t relevant, content is. Moreover, the ad doesn’t belong in the content: The content belongs in the ad. Think destination relevance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
