>
>> Yahoo and Double click offer both untargetted, and targetted ads.
>> Both work perfectly well in their own way. Indeed in the early days,
>> both those services offered only untargetted ads.
>
>Yeah, and untargeted ads have horrible click-through rates.
What are you referring to? No they don't. A small fraction of a
percent is super.
Billions are spent on ad banners; not for no reason.
Yes, prices were way to high for ad banners (talking almost 2 years
ago now) and then the market crashed and now they are fairly priced.
Major advertisers think so anyways.
> This is why
>untargeted cost so much less than targeted.
>
Well it's not THAT much less -- maybe double.
>Also, in the early days the marketing profiles hadn't been fully compiled
>yet, and the concept of loading lots of tracking cookies onto the user's
>computer was just coming into being.
>
>
>> What your'e saying here doesn't make sense -- consider, say
>> Amazon.com (or hell, Banana) wanted ads on egold. Would they choose
>> "everyone" or "targetted" - they'd choose "everyone", anyway.
>
>Then why is there such a huge market for targeted advertising?
But there is not ... ? The vast, vast (90%? more?) majority of
banner ads are untargetted.
>A company
>wants their ads placed where it will draw the largest response. Which will
>draw the largest response... 10,000 Amazon.com ads shown to "everyone" or
>10,000 Amazon.com ads shown to people that are known to be frequent book
>buyers?
I know a bit about Amazon's advertising (both conventional and
online), and as far as banner ads, they mainly buy normal mass
untargetted ads!!
>
>
>> >the probability that a banner will interest the spender would be down
>> >around the usual 0.7% that untargeted advertising usually gets.
>>
>> Sweet jesus mother of christ ... .7 per cent?
>
>The average click-through rate is usually sold to be 1%, but is usually
>down around 0.3-0.7%. This is just the click-through rate, not the rate at
>which the user does anything profitable.
>
>
>> I assume you've never had anything to do with advertising?
>
>Professionally, no. I'm a programmer, not a salesman/ad exec. But I have
>done quite a bit of extensive research into web-based advertising.
I wasnt trying to be a smart arse. I worked in advertising for a few years.
>
>
>> Do the figures .. if Banana (say) ran ads and got .7 per cent
>> response, that would be MINDBOGGLIINGLY FANTASTIC.
>
>You ran 100,000 ads for bananagold on the e-gold spend page. If your
>banner was in a moderately heavy rotation (1/4 of all ads), it would take
>16-50 days to run completely through. With a 0.7% clickthrough, you would
>receive 700 clickthroughs. That is an average of 14-44 clickthroughs/day.
>I didn't say 14-44 purchasing customers. I said clickthroughs, people who
>simply view the frontpage of your site.
True; I happen to know that of e-gold users who see a banana banner
about 1/3 buy something, I should have said that.
Anyway, put that knowledge aside:
$1000 bucks to have SEVEN HUNDRED PEOPLE click through to your site
is --- absolutley astounding, mindblowing, fantastic, wonderful,
priceless.
I'd pay, oh, $20,000 -- $25,000 right now to have 700 e-gold users,.
who make spends (ie, not trivial empty accounts) go look at Banana.
Don't tell Jim I said that in case he is trying to price his banners just now.
>
>
>> >The dowry for marrying e-gold to MegaCorp would be the privacy of it's
>> >users.
>> >After the question of 'How do we contact e-gold users?' comes the question
>> >of 'What are their spending habits & demographics?'.
>>
>> I don't see that at all - why is there a connection?
>
>Why is there such a big market for targeted advertising
but there isn't.
>if untargeted is
>so profitable? How do you create targeted advertising without knowing
>spending habits & demographics?
>
>
>> Of all the web sites that take benner ads, the vast majority do NOT
>> do any sort of demographic sifting, they just sell broad untargetted
>> ads.
>
>And the vast majority have horrible click-through rates. The untargeted
>ads are usually sold to companies who only want to test the water, or
>can't afford targetted ads.
Again, I simply don't know that to be the case, and I buy fairly
large amounts of banner ads for many clients in many fields,
typically through the two majors (yahoo / doubleclick) and
occasionally directly from small independent sites.
> A lot of sites don't do their own advertising.
>They outsource to somebody like DoubleClick
You cant be a doubleclick network site unless you have a certain
number (its vast, i forget) of site views per month.
>who then offers them more
>money if they give a marketing profile of their site & their user
>demographics.
>
>> You could say the same of broadcast TV. I see no "a leads to b"
>> connection there.
>
>Actually there is quite a lot of targeted ads on broadcast TV.
No, there isn't any. It's technically impossible.
Picking a SHOW (as in the examples you describe below) is analogous
to picking a particular web site [example .. stock brokerages pick
TFCTradingCharts.com .. women's things pick babyworld.com] -- it has
nothing to do with "targetting" in the sense you raised the issue and
the meaning of the word in the ad banner scene (you know -- intrusive
demog-fact gathering etc.)
> The
>advertisers place their ad during the timeslots when the people most
>likely to be watching will be the people most likely to be receptive to
>their advertising.
>
>Examples:
>Soap Operas - called that because the advertisers realized that
>stay-at-home wives were watching those shows and so started placing ads
>for all sorts of soaps & cleaning supplies; thus targeted ads on broadcast
>tv.
>
>How often do you think ads for feminine hygiene products show up during
>WWF (Worldwide Wrestling Federation) shows?
>
>It is sometimes interesting to study the ads during a show and figure out
>what the advertisers think is the main demographic watching that show.
>
>
>> >Yes, they should. e-gold should just be an accounting system. Wouldn't
>> >advertising create the same sort of legal liabilities that listing the
>> >businesses in a directory, with the usual disclaimer, would create?
>>
>> Not at all - all advertising outlets can either sell or not sell ads
>> to whoever they want (giving absolutely no reason - they mnight be a
>> competitor, or they might just not like the ad) - it would be the
>> same for egold.
>
>How is that any different than listing, or not listing, the site on the
>directory page? e-gold can choose, at a whim, whether or not to place
>somebody in the directory.
Sure. I was just explaing why what you said two paras above
("wouldnt ads create legal liabilities..") was incorrect.
>
>
>Viking Coder
>________________
>Worth Two Cents?
>http://www.two-cents-worth.com/?VikingCoder
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------
"I feel like we're inside a Civilization game and there's some
fucking idiot playing." --Michael T. McNamara
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
