• by Dan Felter , July 3, 2008

There seems to be a tidal wave of a movement among Web sites and advertisers that are either implementing, contemplating using some form of, or drastically increasing the use of opt-in advertising/lead generation. In my opinion, this is long overdue, but it's better late than never. And in the overall spectrum of things, it's not really that late.

Just a few years ago, it was very clear that almost every site eventually would have some kind of registration mechanism (if Toyota has an email capture on its site, I consider that to be a form of registration). Now it's equally clear that if a site allows for third-party advertising, it also eventually will have some form of co-registration/opt-in advertising mechanism in conjunction with that registration. In fact, co-registration is well on its way to being as commonplace as a banner or search advertising unit. In the same vein, advertisers looking to generate online transactions will be buying opt-ins in much the same way as they buy search or banners.

Why is this? The eCPMs for sites using opt-in advertising are simply too high (exponentially higher than conventional methods of advertising) and the targeting abilities for advertisers just too attractive. In fact, it makes too much sense to ignore opt-in advertising. Think about it. Leads are obtained while vertically, demographically and geographically targeting an audience. This way of communicating and engaging with consumers -- not via a click or impression, but by garnering the email address of legitimately interested consumers -- is as close to the Holy Grail as it gets.

However, just as in every single medium that has been developed on the Web, there is the inevitable temptation to get greedy. I was recently asked how, through all these years, my company has managed to "stay out of the mud" in the lead generation space. The questioner stated that it must have been "really difficult to stay legitimate."

This was rather well said, in that it was being asked in the past tense, as though there is just no way to operate and maintain a sustainable model unless you run co-reg in a "clean" manner. What I mean by clean is beyond the common "short cuts" or "cheating methods" of opt-outs, forced opt-ins and incentivized offers (incentivized being defined as when a consumer is paid, forced or credited by selecting an offer). There still is a plethora of lead-gen providers that are pulling, or trying to pull, a fast one on Web sites and advertisers alike. This can be infuriating, even for a company that has witnessed this on a daily basis over the past five years.

We have seen a new type of "scam" on the lead generation front. Actually, it's been going on for years, but it seems to have become more rampant than ever: companies claiming lead-gen capabilities, Internet reach, etc., that just aren't true. This includes third-party providers claiming to have particular Web sites in their "network."

For example, if I happen to know someone at a site or a company that serves ads onto a site, and I get that person to take a brokered deal from me so the deal can potentially get placed on said site. Just for clarification, this does NOT constitute said site as part of your "network." It gets downright comical, if dishonesty tickles your funny bone. Just recently, I read an article written about a third-party lead generation provider that mentioned five or so sites as part of their "network." The most amusing part of the story was that each one of this particular lead generation company's sites is actually part of my company's network -- Web sites for which we alone power the co-registration/opt-in advertising.

This leads me to my continuing belief that, unfortunately, the onus falls on individual sites and advertisers to monitor and research what claims different companies make. We regularly see offers on pages that have opt-outs, ostensibly from name-brand advertisers that we know would never want to be associated with that type of advertising. We also see sites that sign deals with third-party providers that have limited technology capabilities. Those providers, which simply show multiple pages of offers that are forced upon Web site users, typically sell the concept as "Hey, you are providing free content, so users should have to endure this pain..." In my opinion, advertisers and Web sites run a huge risk of overestimating consumers' desire to be manipulated. And even though the regulatory crackdown on some incentivized lead-gen providers seems to have lost a little steam after a well-publicized push in 2007, I don't think the government has gone completely to sleep on this issue.

In short, while the demand for co-registration is exploding, corner-cutting still abounds. My advice for Web sites is not to get greedy. Think of co-registration as ancillary revenue (not unlike Google's AdSense) that falls nicely to the bottom line. It shouldn't be the financial foundation upon which a site is built. Advertisers concerned about the integrity of their brands should do a bit more "looking under the hood" of some lead-gen providers to be sure they understand exactly where their offers are running.