• by Michael Kubin , Op-Ed Contributor, September 5, 2001

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you. After a truly disastrous year, a lot of folks who make their living in Web advertising are looking over their shoulders. Think about it -- doesn't it seem like there have been quite a few newspaper and magazine articles recently talking about how Web advertising doesn't work?

Let's see... why would newspapers and magazines disparage a competing medium? Could it be that the pool of available advertising dollars is vanishing faster than voters' memories of Al Gore, and that each medium is scraping for whatever pennies are left?

That would be a cynical way of looking at editorial integrity but, as the saying goes, desperate times call for desperate means. And with newspaper and magazine ad revenues down by 40%, is it really too paranoid to imagine an editor or two targeting a competitive medium with a disparaging story? Especially a medium that's been growing as quickly as the Web?

It's pretty clear that Web advertising has been, in Shakespeare's words, 'hoist by its own petard.' When it was first introduced, the big ballyhoo was about how this medium would be the most targetable, trackable, and accountable medium in the history of advertising. That was the good news, so advertisers - and investors - flocked to it. For a while.

Then, panicked by what was perceived to be a drop in a key indicator (clickthroughs), lots of folks lost confidence. Never mind that studies have shown that the Web works really well as a brand-building tool - it's all about accountability, and those numbers were in a nosedive.

So the very adjectives that built the medium in the first place - trackable and accountable - have been the principal cause for its current troubles.

But ask yourself this: are other media being held to the same standard? If you answer the question honestly, it has to be a resounding 'no.' Television (with the exception of direct response, which is a horse of a different color) is bought and measured through the use of ratings (derived by statistical projection) and reach/frequency calculations (even fluffier abstractions). Radio is evaluated in much the same way, although industry professionals will vouch for the fact that radio ratings are often amazingly unstable (can we say...untrustworthy?). And yet billions of ad dollars flow into electronic media.

Newspapers and magazines? You'd think that those media that can count the number of issues that are sold should be easier not measure. Not so fast, amigo. Magazines, as a matter of course, include 'soft' figures such as pass-along readership (sometimes as high as 10 per copy) as well as copies distributed in hotel rooms and doctors' offices.

Newspapers? Many of the same circulation-building tricks apply. Take a close look at an ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) statement sometime when you're having trouble sleeping.

And outdoor? Don't get me started.

So what's the point of all this? Sour grapes? Well, truth be told, yes, a bit. Having witnessed the birth and growth of other media, I'm particularly sensitive to the crap being slung our way. And yes, it is my ox that's being gored. Unfairly, I might add. I still firmly believe that in a few years' time the Web will fulfill its early promise: targetable, trackable, accountable.

Oh, and one more little detail: it will reach more consumers than any other medium. Stay tuned.

- Michael Kubin is co-CEO of Evaliant, formerly Leading Web Advertisers, one of the web's leading sources for online ad data. He may be reached at mkubin@evaliant.net.