Tag Archive for "advertising"
Do you need to advertise wine or another luxury good, but you’re not sure you want to finance a complete campaign? The Palate Press Advertising Network is pleased to announce the first of its kind Time Share Ad Campaign. Buy one share in a campaign or buy all ten. As soon as the whole campaign is committed we will load load it and start it running. Each ad will run independently, so viewers will not know that you only purchased part of a campaign. Here’s how it works:
- Tell us how many shares you want to buy, from one to ten. Every share costs $30 and gets 2500 page views in a month.
- Tell us how when you want the ad to start, and where you want it to be viewed. We can geo-target by city, metro area, State, and country.
- Send *.gif, *.jpg, *.jpeg, or *.png graphics for at least two of our three standard ad sizes, 160×600, 728×90, and 300×250.
- Tell us where you want the ad to link.
- Tell your friends and associates about us, because the sooner we sell all ten shares, the sooner your ad will run.
The form to participate in a Palate Press Advertising Network Time Share campaign is below.
By purchased a share of advertising in The Palate Press Advertising Network, you will be seen on the broadest, deepest wine advertising network on the internet. Your advertisement will be seen on more than 100 different wine websites, including Palate Press: The online wine magazine, CellarTracker, Wine Berserkers, 1WineDude, The New York Cork Report, and more. The Palate Press Advertising Network serves more than four million ad spaces per month to over two million unique wine viewers. Our readers are educated, wealthy, and they love wine.
Read more about Time Share Ad Sales on The Palate Press Advertising Network. we look forward to working with you to create a successful campaign.
Each share costs $30 and guarantees 2500 impressions in a month. We will load each Time Share campaign once we sell ten shares. Each submission should include graphics for at least two of our three standard sizes, 160x600, 728x90, and 300x250, as a *.gif, *.jpg, *.jpeg, or *.png.
“Tell me when Budweiser only pays NBC if somebody gets off the couch, turns off the Super Bowl, goes to the liquor store, and opens the beer cooler, and I’ll sell you per-click advertising.”
I have probably said this fifty times since starting The Palate Press Advertising Network. Unfortunately, Google has created an expectation among on-line advertisers that they should only have to pay for viewers that look at their ads, then click on them to go to the advertiser’s website. It works for Google because it can pump out a tremendous volume of advertisements, some percentage of which get clicked. That volume also allows them to offer low rates and a definable and verifiable result for their clients. It appears to work for the advertisers, many of whom are new to on-line advertising. Wondering what it’s all about, they can at least see what they imagine to be their Return on Investment (“ROI”), measured as click-throughs.
Is this the right model for on-line advertising? No, likely it is not. It is visible and measurable, but is not how advertising works. Advertising is about branding: creating familiarity with a brand name or a label. Wine advertising should be less about direct sales, a tiny percentage of the real wine market, and more about branding. It should be about teaching the customer to recognize your label; when the customer walks into a wine store, they are likely to buy wine with a label they’ve seen in a positive light on the websites they visit. This model works for print ad sales, but for reasons that have far more to do with Google’s (and now Facebook’s) business model than the interests of the advertiser, it is not the expectation for on-line advertising.
Simon Owns of the Nieman Journalism Lab, a project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University, has a very interesting article on this subject, The Geico Gecko meets the AOL Way: Are display advertisers too obsessed with click-through rates?
It begins (after an introduction about AOL’s changes in its ad sizes) with the observation:
“According to several studies, click-through rates — the number of people who actually click on an ad — run well below 1 percent on most sites, and each year these rates get lower and lower.”
Advertisers find these studies depressing, an indication that on-line advertising is a failure. I run into this with every conversation, always hearing some version of, “we tried on-line advertising but just didn’t get the results we expected.” When digging deeper, it always turns out that when they “tried on-line advertising,” they ran an ad for a month and did not see a leap in click-throughs and on-line sales.
The study goes on to compare traditional advertising to on-line advertising using a familiar avatar, the Geico Gecko:
“The Geico Gecko is not successful because he inspires people to jump up from their couches and purchase car insurance; he’s successful because when a person decides months later to shop around for car insurance, his image springs to mind.”
This is completely contrary to the thought behind on-line advertising. Indeed, the on-line advertisers are working harder every day to create measurable evidence of the immediate effect of on-line ads. One company, MediaMind, is adding a new measure to the mix — a “dwell” measure — that determines not just how many times people click, but how long they spend with the cursor over the ad. This is added to the click-through rate to identify a measure of “user engagement.” Of even greater concern, they then determined that user engagement goes down significantly after a reader sees the ad for the first time, indicating that the ROI on anything other than the very first ad has a value diminishing to zero.
This is contrary to everything we think we know about advertising. We see the same beer ad on every football game, every basketball game, for the entire run of a campaign. Is it really possible that giant corporations with enormous research and marketing budgets are completely missing the point? Are they wasting their money on ABC, NBC, and CBS? Would they be better off running an ad just one time, say at halftime of the Super Bowl, and then never again?
No. Of course not.
Why not? For one reason, and a darned important reason at that. As Owens pointed out, citing a comScore study in 2009, 4 percent of Internet users drive a whopping 67 percent of all advertising clicks. The Palate Press Advertising Network had more than a million unique visitors in January, 2011. A click-through campaign would only be targeted at 40,000 of those readers, while a branding campaign would be aimed at every single one of them.
Advertisers are missing the point of advertising when they attempt to focus their results on click-throughs rather than branding. They are far better off getting their label in front of consumers, telling their story, creating interest, and making the viewer a buyer when the viewer is in a store. Advertisers need to recognize that on-line advertising is not a new product with new rules. It is the same product, using the same rules, on a different platform.