ROI. Get used to it, Madison Avenue.
In the past 15 years, the hyper-growth of interactive media has presented the advertising world with some of its most pressing challenges; since it is so easy to measure performance online, advertisers would like to better measure the performance of non-interactive media (print, radio, outdoor, TV). Spurred on by John Wanamaker’s legendary quote, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half,” advertisers have been asking big media to justify $30 – $100 for much of the last five years. The pressures of the current economic conditions have only added to the urgency.
My view of the prices of media advertising in general is somewhat controversial. I believe the reason print and TV have been able to demand the rates they have is largely because there were so few ways to measure the efficacy of the buy; they are largely opaque non-performance-based media. We all know TV viewing rates are “measured” by a measly 5,000 Nielsen Peoplemeters and rates have been artificially boosted by the entire “Sweeps” concept and the Up-front sales process. When you look at the TiVo data, you get a more clear understanding of how poorly correlated the Nielsen viewing numbers really are with reality (when DVR usage is taken into the picture.)
Why talk about this now? Because online, every click is known. We know people try their best to ignore ads. The heatmaps of eyeball viewership online demonstrate that people try their best to avoid looking at banners. But we have also learned that search is the best indicator of intent and that when highly relevant (text) ads are shown, users click in great numbers. And when we combine intent with relevancy and interactivity, the real value of reaching a customer is known. Today, Google’s adwords market is the best indication of what a customer is worth. And it is nowhere near $100 CPM.
Why are online CPMs $5 – $20 for text and banner ads and TV is 5-10 times that? Because TV (and most traditional media) has been significantly over-priced for decades and online media is priced closer to the value to an advertiser of reaching a consumer. In addition, there is a growing supply and demand problem. What percentage of total available web inventory is unsold? 60%? 80%? That drives down prices. And even so-called premium inventory (Yahoo home page, nytimes.com) is sold at half that of TV CPMs.
So, where is this all going? Traditional media CPMs are coming down. And as those media become interactive and can be sold on a performance basis, their effective CPMs will fall dramatically as the true value of reaching a customer emerges.
This means the race is on for making all media as hyper-targeted, efficient, and as performance-based as it can become. One of my favorite digital media sectors is the advertising technology space. There are a plethora of companies focused on exactly this. By using every type of math around applied to every piece of data thrown off by our surfing behavior, we can make advertising more relevant and measure its efficacy. This satisfies the advertiser’s need to buy advertising on a performance basis and, in theory, makes advertising that much more relevant to the consumer. (I am skeptical that, aside from search marketing, we have yet seen any advertising actually appreciated by a consumer, but that is the subject for a different blog post…)
So, stay tuned for more thoughts on this space. I’d like to explore some specific sectors of ad tech like media buying, behavioral targeting and media exchanges.
This reminded me of Ethan Zuckerman’s recent blog post “Is ad-supported journalism viable in a pay-for-performance age?” where he makes a similar point about the disparity between online CPMs vs. CPMs for ads in local newspapers. I think your analysis is spot-on; I’d be interested in seeing your future thoughts on where the ad market is header.
Thanks for the link to Ethan’s post. I enjoyed it.
[...] on a measured ROI basis. With so much more advertising going performance-based (as I have written about before), this problem is ripe for a technological [...]
Thank you for your post.
” ..(I am skeptical that, aside from search marketing, we have yet seen any advertising actually appreciated by a consumer, but that is the subject for a different blog post…)”
It feels like this is always “the subject for a different blog post” because talking about the math and the metrics is quantifiable, I guess. I agree that “using every type of math around applied to every piece of data thrown off by our surfing behavior” will measure the efficacy of online advertising but I don’t think it will make it more relevant if the advertising continues to be reviled by the consumer. I won’t refer to specific data that supports this here, but people look at video commercials on the web and sigh in disgust at the TV-like intrusion. Do you have any insights on whether advertising creative will have to somehow find contextual relevance to media content (outside of search) in order for it to have any shot at resonating with a consumer? Will advertisers have to court content creators at the beginning of their projects? Vice versa?
Mike,
I loved your comments and completely agree. Today, lots of the incremental performance squeaked out of display ads, at the end of the day, still end up putting a display ad in front of a consumer. If the consumer doesn’t appreciate this advertising (the way they do search ads), we still have work to do. But I have confidence that smart people understand this and are thinking about ad products that are less interrupt-driven and more complimentary to the media on which they appear. The contextual and behavioral relevance are basically here today, but that doesn’t change the fact that the ad products aren’t very consumer-friendly.
David
I find the suggestion that search is the key to make people like advertising somewhat surprising.
In my opinion search is not the key – the key to successful advertising is to advertise something to the user that he/she is interested in at the time, place and context of being served the ad.
Search does this well, because we know what the user is interested in right now. But as soon as the search ad is only seems to match the users context it performs poorly.
So in the race is on for making all media as hyper-targeted, efficient, and as performance-based as an online search ad, we “just” need infrastructure to know what the users is interested in, where the users is, what he/she is doing and what types of ads he/she prefers. We also need better tools for advertisers and we need to convince the advertisers to spend a larger share of their marketing budgets on hyper-targeted, efficient and performance-based advertising.
Christian
Progression Partners
Christian,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your point that one key to making advertising effective is relevance in time, place and context. My point is this is very hard to do with non-search ad products like display and video since by definition, when searching, I am actively looking for something and my intent is known. When not searching, even though I still may be in the market for a new surfboard, I may not care to see an ad while reading a news story about something unrelated. I agree we need better tools! Thanks,
David