Comments on: Does Glenn Hansen have a death wish? http://www.themarketfarm.com/2009/12/07/does-glenn-hansen-have-a-death-wish/ Cultivating sales channels. Monetizing content. Fri, 09 Jul 2010 16:15:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: rgrosenbaum http://www.themarketfarm.com/2009/12/07/does-glenn-hansen-have-a-death-wish/comment-page-1/#comment-16478 rgrosenbaum Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:22:41 +0000 http://www.themarketfarm.com/wordpress/?p=614#comment-16478 Fred, Thank you for posting. A couple points: 1) I don't work for any B2B publisher now, and am not speaking on behalf of any B2B publisher. 2) The basis of my argument here isn't that audits are either inaccurate or slow. It's that they're becoming obsolete. 3) I wholly agree with you that a large layer of website traffic is irrelevant to the advertiser. That's the point of paying for direct response rather than banner advertising (which behaves much like print display advertising). There is a spectrum of response that advertisers can purchase. + Impressions: lowest cost, most waste + Clickthroughs: higher cost, less waste + Leads: Highest cost, least waste. Those who purchase at the low end of the spectrum would be served by the information a BPA audit provides. But the number of such advertisers continues to decline. Those who buy at the higher end of the spectrum don't pay for unnecessary traffic, so they don't mind it. 4) Your frustration with publishers' directives is well founded. I would, however, defend myself and many others (but not all) against broad brush strokes on the point. Often as not, efforts to push BPA are not about trying to cheat; they're about trying to respond positively to the voice of the customer. I appreciate your comments and hope you don't take this response as argumentative. Fred,
Thank you for posting. A couple points:
1) I don’t work for any B2B publisher now, and am not speaking on behalf of any B2B publisher.
2) The basis of my argument here isn’t that audits are either inaccurate or slow. It’s that they’re becoming obsolete.
3) I wholly agree with you that a large layer of website traffic is irrelevant to the advertiser. That’s the point of paying for direct response rather than banner advertising (which behaves much like print display advertising).
There is a spectrum of response that advertisers can purchase.
+ Impressions: lowest cost, most waste
+ Clickthroughs: higher cost, less waste
+ Leads: Highest cost, least waste.
Those who purchase at the low end of the spectrum would be served by the information a BPA audit provides. But the number of such advertisers continues to decline.
Those who buy at the higher end of the spectrum don’t pay for unnecessary traffic, so they don’t mind it.
4) Your frustration with publishers’ directives is well founded. I would, however, defend myself and many others (but not all) against broad brush strokes on the point. Often as not, efforts to push BPA are not about trying to cheat; they’re about trying to respond positively to the voice of the customer.
I appreciate your comments and hope you don’t take this response as argumentative.

]]> By: fred4945 http://www.themarketfarm.com/2009/12/07/does-glenn-hansen-have-a-death-wish/comment-page-1/#comment-16477 fred4945 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:43:58 +0000 http://www.themarketfarm.com/wordpress/?p=614#comment-16477 You know, Bob, I find your post ironic. I cut my teeth in a call center which did a significant portion of the telemarketing for your fine publications. (To those not in the business, magazines use telemarketing to obtain many or most of the reader requests verified in the BPA audits which Bob attacks). The call center received the same simple directive every audit cycle: Your publisher wanted to maintain the numbers of requests and they didn't care how the telemarketer got them. BPA has a strict rule: if a set percentage of the telemarketed requests are unverifiable, all the telemarketing orders are rejected and the audit fails (publisher's BPA statement must be restated without the telemarketed orders). It is my understanding that your company had to deal with that problem more than once. Therefore, I find your bemoaning of BPA's reliability to be a tad less than credible. As to the internet being the answer to a marketer's search for "measured response", give me a break. It may fit your needs, but it doesn't solve the advertiser's bottom line -- which is measured SALES (i.e. "How many sales do I get from this ad purchase?). The prime reason online is such a small percentage of a B2B media house's revenue is the fact that "clickthroughs" or "pages seen" or even raw leads translate so poorly into sales. For instance, a manufacturer of semiconductor fabrication equipment does not know whether those "clickthroughs" represent high-tech manufacturing customers or a bunch of 18 year-olds doing a term paper. If the leads are in the form of emails, the chaff far outnumbers the wheat (able and motivated buyers). Let's compare your Chicken Little prophecy with measured fact: This summer, FOLIO Magazine polled B2B media CEOs about their 2009 revenue. Their responses showed that over half is still from print advertising. No other revenue stream was above 15% -- and online revenue was a distant third (barely 10%, as I recall). Bottom line: your gripe with BPA's website audits isn't that they're slow, or that they're inaccurate. Your worry is that the audits might well show advertisers how much of claimed website readership is either not relevant or not there. To that extent, it seems BPA's tendency to frustrate your "creative" circulation management is no different regarding online than in print. Frustrating "creativity" is what audit bureaus are there for. You know, Bob, I find your post ironic.

I cut my teeth in a call center which did a significant portion of the telemarketing for your fine publications. (To those not in the business, magazines use telemarketing to obtain many or most of the reader requests verified in the BPA audits which Bob attacks).

The call center received the same simple directive every audit cycle: Your publisher wanted to maintain the numbers of requests and they didn’t care how the telemarketer got them. BPA has a strict rule: if a set percentage of the telemarketed requests are unverifiable, all the telemarketing orders are rejected and the audit fails (publisher’s BPA statement must be restated without the telemarketed orders). It is my understanding that your company had to deal with that problem more than once.

Therefore, I find your bemoaning of BPA’s reliability to be a tad less than credible.

As to the internet being the answer to a marketer’s search for “measured response”, give me a break. It may fit your needs, but it doesn’t solve the advertiser’s bottom line — which is measured SALES (i.e. “How many sales do I get from this ad purchase?).

The prime reason online is such a small percentage of a B2B media house’s revenue is the fact that “clickthroughs” or “pages seen” or even raw leads translate so poorly into sales.

For instance, a manufacturer of semiconductor fabrication equipment does not know whether those “clickthroughs” represent high-tech manufacturing customers or a bunch of 18 year-olds doing a term paper. If the leads are in the form of emails, the chaff far outnumbers the wheat (able and motivated buyers).

Let’s compare your Chicken Little prophecy with measured fact: This summer, FOLIO Magazine polled B2B media CEOs about their 2009 revenue. Their responses showed that over half is still from print advertising. No other revenue stream was above 15% — and online revenue was a distant third (barely 10%, as I recall).

Bottom line: your gripe with BPA’s website audits isn’t that they’re slow, or that they’re inaccurate. Your worry is that the audits might well show advertisers how much of claimed website readership is either not relevant or not there.

To that extent, it seems BPA’s tendency to frustrate your “creative” circulation management is no different regarding online than in print.

Frustrating “creativity” is what audit bureaus are there for.

]]>