Another Vote for Vertical Networks, The Problem with “Free”- and more from around the web

Posted on | April 5, 2008 |

How To Make Proper Use Of Ad Networks, is a nice piece by Cory Treffiletti, written for Media Post warning that most media planners are using ad networks incorrectly and therefore inefficiently. Cory writes there are basically 3 types of network; the general networks - like Valueclick, Tribal Fusion, the behavioral networks - Blue Lithium, and the vertical networks - Glam Media (women-targeted) and GoFish (kids).

The planning error occurs in layering networks in an effort to reach direct response goals and negotiate the CPM’s down. End result - the client gets second or third tier inventory - and lots of dupple bemupple (duplication). A further problem he notes, is that this buying strategy overlooks the possibility of using ad networks as a branding vehicle - one cure - better use of creative.

When I read through the comments, its good to hear strong support for the verticals - one commentator citing. “The biggest difference between vertical networks [and other types] is that they are not remnant inventory. Rather, they tend to be expertly vetted long tail sites”.

The major message here, is that ad networks get a rather bum rap, but maybe its just poor planning…

In There’s No Such Thing As Free! Max Kalehoff, (citing in part Forrester CEO George Colony from his blog) - has a bit of fun with the theory of Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business - excerpt - in Wired this month - from Chris Anderson’s new book. Anderson says that the Web represents an extension of the media business model to numerous industries.

The problem with “free” - argue Kalehoff and Colony - is that it comes with a price, meaning there are not only limits to advertising, but they’re also really limits of the entire media model that premises Andersen’s free argument.

First, many will accept the sacrifices inherent with free content or product — Andersen’s argument. However, if free really proliferates, it’s likely there will be a dividing countermovement of people who want things not free. Instead, they’ll want things when they want it, and with no compromise attached.

Second, if the Web grows in importance and becomes even more the backbone of critical information and services, the baggage associated with free will not always be welcomed. Colony points to Wall Street trading systems, and first-responder communications systems. These services need to do what they need best, with no ads, no indirect monetization schemes or other compromise — only the best product with a straightforward price and high accountability.

One medium where free - at least with younger consumers - makes sense - Mobile.

According to a new report from The Nielsen Company, twenty-three percent (58 million) of all U.S. mobile subscribers say they’ve been exposed to advertising on their phones in the past 30 days. Half (51% or 28 million) of all data users who recall seeing mobile advertising in the previous 30 days say they responded to a mobile ad.

While just 10% of data users said they think advertising on their mobile devices is acceptable, an increasing number of mobile users appear to understand the value proposition of ad-supported mobile content.

Are mobile carriers the ad networks of the future?

For more on the study

Comments