Reasons 1-2
As online marketers, we've long touted the benefits of online marketing as being the most measureable form of advertising. While in theory there is some validity to the argument, the reality is we spend most of our time focused on a relatively insignificant data point -- the click. The click was the metric touted in the very first paid banner advertising when AT&T asked: "Have you ever clicked your mouse right here?" At first glance, clicks seemed like a metric that made sense, but when you dig in, you realize there's a lot more to be looking for.
So why should we reject the click? Consider these reasons.
Reason 1: 99.9 percent of banner ads don't get clicks
What other industries base their success on a metric where the industry average response rate is 0.1 percent? My best banner campaign ever had a 5 percent click-through rate. Now this was in the early days of digital marketing (1998), but it's been a long time since we saw response even close to that. Ad networks tout success at a 0.05 percent click-through rate. It seems to me that the impact we have on the other 99 percent of the audience is going to be much more important.
Reason 2: As cost erodes, so does content quality
Using clicks as a core measurement has driven down the value of online media. A long time ago, I paid $50-plus CPMs to reach highly targeted niche audiences. In hindsight, perhaps we paid too much, but we also saw a benefit in a higher level of quality content. Those destinations had dedicated web reporters, new content came online first, and many sites started to shine as the best place to get news and information. But with clicks as the primary success metric, publishers were forced to lower their rates and in turn they have fewer resources to provide quality content.
0 comments:
Post a Comment