Cross Targeting - Latest Comments

Re: Newspaper Advertising’s Future – Value Ad for Online?

rippyj — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:51:39 -0000

Your thought has been discussed for years and is very premature. What you propose is like saying charge for the popcorn and the movie tickets are free! Facts remain that as a business, online revenue is still less than 10-15% of total revenue. Local advertisers buy print - in most mid to smaller communities the online tech world is still way behind the curve and out of reach for them. Larger, more sophisticated advertisers are different and some of what you suggest would be viable for them - they usually are 30-40% of total revenue. The other main issue is that the online generation does not want to pay - therefore the burden falls exclusively to advertisers. Most are balancing budget sheets daily and few have the size or luxury to devote to much attention to future speculation. The real answer lies somewhere around either having consumers pay for the online information or taking it offline and making them buy the print if they want it - at least until technology advances a lot farther down the path of convenience as a comprehensive news source.

Re: CPM vs. CPA for Retargeting and Display

avinash123 — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 06:30:25 -0000

Hi,
Your article is really very interesting. I would like to also add cpa directory information for viewers. They will get more information from here.

Re: Can One DSP Provide a Complete Solution?

senithomas — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 07:26:07 -0000

I believe that DSP tech is a commodity and no one DSP is that much better than another and in fact many are very tech thin and hide behind a mantle of 'service'. All the agency needs to control is an effect data management/segmentation solution that will allow them to plug into any DSP they wish.

Re: Direct Response Creative 101

marcpickren — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:55:27 -0000

Sometimes all you need is 3 bullet points to get the point across better than a long verbose article. Of course this lesson you learned about Direct Response still holds true, it will always hold true. Sometimes all it takes is for people to hear the word "free" and they come running.

Thanks!

Marc Pickren

Re: Can One DSP Provide a Complete Solution?

Qeg — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 08:12:54 -0000

Interesting points you make but I feel the opposite to your own thoughts and have recently written a post on this very subject.

http://seekingalpha.com/ins...

Re: Make the Customer Commit

marcpickren — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:40:23 -0000

Thank you for this article. I think its an excellent idea.

Marc

Re: Make the Customer Commit

marcpickren — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:40:02 -0000

This is a great idea! Thank you!

Re: View Conversion Spam is Fraud and Needs to Stop

Good Egg — Wed, 19 May 2010 15:05:54 -0000

Another interesting article for those online marketing specialists responsible for display ads campaigns.

Re: CPM vs. CPA for Retargeting and Display

AlanPearlstein — Mon, 17 May 2010 07:05:16 -0000

Josh - I think you are pointing out the issue that I am also addressing - it's all about the service provider working as an agent for the client (on a fee % basis) and not arbitraging the client. (whether it's CPM or CPA). Since CPM buys usually work on a fee basis, and CPA deals are usually an arbitrage, I used CPA and CPM to define the issue. However, you are absolutely correct - the issue is about transparency, regardless of the buying model. In my experience most CPA providers don't provide transparency (they wont even tell you the # of imps served in a retargeting campaign), and they often do this to "game" the client.

Re: CPM vs. CPA for Retargeting and Display

Josh McFarland — Wed, 12 May 2010 18:28:16 -0000

You have some great perspectives throughout your blog, but this is a pretty weak argument. CPM pricing falls prey to the exact same issues you outline above wrt the services provider seeking maximal arbitrage margin. In the absence of transparency around the cost of the raw inventory and a flat %age fee on top (i.e. an agency or technology fee), paying for retargeting on a CPM model only worsens the outcome for the advertiser.

And let's not forget that Google now offers self-service CPC-based retargeting, so why regress?

The right way to do this is to structure tranches of budget or rev share according to different CPA goals -- with each becoming slightly sweeter for additional acquisition volume. Also, with a little due diligence, an advertiser should feel comfortable that their retargeting services provider is not just going to sit back and optimize toward a low number of highly profitable acquisitions.

Re: CPM vs. CPA for Retargeting and Display

jbreinlinger — Tue, 11 May 2010 17:08:54 -0000

Bravo!

I agree that CPM is truly the best model and as an advertiser I personally switched from paying on a convoluted CPA arrangement to a straight CPM deal. The biggest problem I found with CPA was silly arguments over what conversions should be attributed to the specific campaign vs any of our other marketing channels. The reality nowadays is that all the channels contribute to a user's buying behavior and it's rarely a single ad or single search that resulted in the conversion.

I say buy on CPM and demand transparency so you can see the impressions, clicks, and conversions of every ad, campaign, site, or network. Then you can make smart decisions with your retargeting vendor and your goals really are aligned.

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit – Part 2

AlanPearlstein — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:02:36 -0000

Fair enough. i was primarily making the point that they are huge and have tons of data and have been at it forever and if anyone should have created a secret sauce, you would think it would be them.

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit – Part 2

AlanPearlstein — Fri, 07 May 2010 23:56:25 -0000

I am making this point - most algorithms that are used in the online space don't work and company's use them to window dress a bad product or nefarious activity (view spam). I remain wary of any company that can't explain what their algorithm does and can't prove that it actually works. I appreciate your point of view but I'm not sure why you would call this a personal anecdote. My opinion is based on hundreds of campaigns that my agency has executed for clients over the last 8 years. And we dont run very many anymore with companies that can't explain exactly what they do because we have seen so few of them work (beyond delivering 50 view conversions for every one click conversion).

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit – Part 2

tom213 — Fri, 07 May 2010 22:35:07 -0000

Strange that you mention ad.com with reverence and then condemn view conversion spam - the ad.com secret sauce for performance!

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit – Part 2

Foo — Fri, 07 May 2010 14:02:54 -0000

What the heck are you saying? This post is repetitive and circular.

Any time someone starts a mathmatical debate with "I'm not techie, but..." run far far away. What is your thesis? "Algorithms are hard & Algorithms are bull$hit?"

"I’m sure that comment will not sit well with some of the company’s developing predictive models based on limited data, but I have never seen this strategy work for a client and I remain very wary..."

You remain wary of what exactly? It would take far too long to refute what really is a personal annecdote and an unsupported on at that.

Re: View Conversion Spam is Fraud and Needs to Stop

Juan Carlos — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:20:32 -0000

These guys are speaking the same language: http://www.adexchanger.com/...

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit

AlanPearlstein — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:09:28 -0000

Hey Scott,
You hit on my main point about the secret sauce - is it really a secret sauce or just a bunch of guys arbitraging inventory and gaming the client with "fraudulent" view through conversions? There is no doubt that many companies have developed solid technology that can process/analyze a lot of data and improve the performance. My fear is that for every real company there are five that fall into the shady category - and they are usually the ones that can't explain the why and the how.
I hear things are going really well at Traffiq - congrats!
Alan

Re: Most Algorithms are Bullshit

Scott Portugal — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:25:14 -0000

Alan,
Not sure I agree that MOST algorithms are BS, but I absolutely agree that science only gets you so far. Automated delivery platforms serve the buyer who wants to acquiesce control of the delivery and, to be honest, the control of the learnings that stem from the campaign. An independent delivery platform can by nature only reveal a portion of their "secret sauce" (if it actually is secret sauce and not just a bunch of guys arbitraging inventory). Agencies need & deserve a service layer that helps them understand not just the where & the when, but most importantly, the why and the how. The stronger we are in providing best-in-class service to our agency partners, the stronger they'll be in driving more client budget into digital. And when things do go wrong - and they will - algorithms aren't very good at saving relationships. A strong service backbone, however, is critical in doing precisely that.

Re: Can You Sell Ice to an Eskimo?

codyboyte — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:11:57 -0000

I used to think the comment about "selling ice to Eskimos" was about lying to people and selling them things they didn't need. It's like the similar statement of "selling sand to Saudis". Both seem dishonest on the surface, but if you consider what most honest, hard working companies do it's really just repackaging things that already exist with more benefits. Selling microchips (repackaged sand) to Saudis is in fact beneficial. If you built a refrigeration unit that came with locks to keep bears out then you would in essence be selling ice to Eskimos, but ice with a very direct benefit.

Superstar salespeople are good at the process of figuring out the benefits of your product and finding exactly how those benefits fit the prospects. A superstar salesman can't sell your product very well if they don't believe in it, people see through slick liars (no matter how good they think they are). Superstars are just better at seeing the product/client fit, understanding what the client needs, and creating the wonderful connection between the prospect and your product so that the prospect just has to have your product. And they tend to be tenacious, when they smell a good fit and a good prospect they don't let go.

Re: A Possible Solution to Privacy and Behavioral Advertising

AlanPearlstein — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 20:13:54 -0000

I think my goals are the same as yours. My proposal would encourage publishers to adopt privacy rules that respect the consumer by forcing them to bring their policies front and center. Isn’t this better for consumers than the current proposals that are on the table that will require clear disclosure in the T ’s and C’s of a site that collects data? I want the disclosure on every page, so consumers can always access the sites data policies. It also provides a mechanism for publishers to ensure that they can earn enough revenue to support their content. My proposal removes one choice for the consumer – content for free with general ads. Unfortuantely selling ads through ad networks for $.50 CPM’s can’t always pay the bills for a publisher and I think they are entitled to this option. If the policy doesn’t work for the consumer they can not use the site or pay to use the site. But I dont think this will be the case because I believe publishers will be responsible when it comes to privacy and I believe consumers will opt for targeted ads with publishers that respect their privacy.

Re: A Possible Solution to Privacy and Behavioral Advertising

AlanPearlstein — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:20:47 -0000

Re: A Possible Solution to Privacy and Behavioral Advertising

Jeff Rosen — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 13:46:38 -0000

Exactly as I said:
"transparently engage the consumer, recognizing them as part of the process and reward them for their participation."

Re: A Possible Solution to Privacy and Behavioral Advertising

chesterj1 — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 11:41:26 -0000

This is absurdly cynical--and disrespectful to consumers. What online marketers need to do is to honestly explain to a consumer how their information is collected and used (and auctioned off, and boosted by third party data, etc). Consumers need control over the data--especially when it involves financial and health related marketing. The use of any ethnic/racial data, which is becoming part of online targeting profiles, must also be controlled by a user. Consumers will be more likely to share their data--and even allow its further use/sale--if they have trust in the publishing site. By truly ensuring consumer privacy, online marketers are also positioning themselves for the coming time when their reputations will be shaped by how well they respect a users data rights. That will mean more than just accessing so called "free" content--but a financial share of what the publisher and advertiser gains.

Re: A Possible Solution to Privacy and Behavioral Advertising

Jeffrey Rosen — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 09:24:04 -0000

Alan,

I have been working on a very similar platform for two years. Inevitably what you are suggesting is: predetermining the value of an individual user, verifying that they will generate enough revenue to grant access and providing the user with choices.

What you have failed to touch upon is how those ads get targeted. For the most part, ads are currently targeted through cookie data or surreptitious collection of personal data from social networking sites, neither of which provide the granular, panel-like data advertisers crave for the purposes of branding. If you are going to command very high ad rates to justify free access, you are going to need to transparently engage the consumer, recognizing them as part of the process and reward them for their participation.

I certainly hope your suggestion is an eventuality seeing as I have spent more than two years working on it.

I would be happy to discuss this further in a less public venue. Feel free to get in touch.

J Rosen

Re: Freaking Out the Consumer is a Bad Privacy Strategy

bheagle — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 13:24:35 -0000

The ability to target and customize ads to consumers based on their past activities has been around for years in the offline world, i.e. ever notice how when you order something from one catalog business you get similar catalogs in the mail for the next few months? That is something that consumers are accustomed to experiencing and doesn't really freak anybody out. The difference with customizing ads online is that there is a preconditioned response that has been built into the online user after years of exposure to stories around spyware, phishing scams and identity theft. This general fear makes it much scarier to consumers when they come across very customized ads and leads to a questioning process that makes the consumer uncomfortable and ultimately "freaks them out". Questions like: If an advertiser was able to capture that data on me who else was able to do so? What else do they know? Is my sensative information protected? The truth is just as many people could have their identities stolen if someone went through their mail or garbage, yet you don't see people locking their garbage cans or mail boxes. To Alan's point, this has to be understood and handled with sensativity or else there will be an eventual backlash from the "freaked out" consumer.