Commentary

There's A Word For 'Buying Traffic': It's Called Advertising

I’m writing this in the air, on my way back to New York from Ad:Tech in San Francisco, and I’m feeling… I don’t know.  Confused? Frustrated? It’s hard to find the right adjective. Throughout the ongoing procession of meetings and conversations, both preplanned and impromptu, there seemed to be one theme, never actually mentioned outright, but rather subtly alluded to. 

Apparently, when it comes to online media companies, the negative connotation associated with “buying traffic” has broadened to include visitors reached through paid advertising on tier-one outlets, including Google, Bing, Facebook and others.

“Organic” traffic, on the other hand, is the Holy Grail of online visitor acquisition, as it’s always been. After all, what could be better than traffic that comes to a site directly or finds their way there though clicking a link as the result of a natural search?  And that makes sense.  But why the sudden vinegar for traffic driven through paid advertising?  The term “buying traffic” has become too broad: lumping Google AdWords in with more sketchy practices like pop-unders and redirects isn’t just inane, it’s irresponsible.

advertisement

advertisement

Let’s break it down to a few key points:

1.     Online video networks have a particularly difficult time with SEO.  In some cases, the variety of content may be too broad, and even for sites that are focused on specific categories, it can be quite a bit of work to get search engines to recognize video content properly.  So natural search is unlikely to yield the best results for audiences trying to find keyword-based content. 

2.     If marketers and ad exchanges as a whole suddenly decided only to monetize media sites (specifically video-based sites) that just entertained purely organic traffic, and had a large enough audience to be deemed an interesting advertising outlet, there wouldn’t be nearly enough sites on the market to handle the demand.  My guess is that we can count on two hands the number of sites that focus on video, have over two million unique visitors per month, and don’t spend a penny on PPC advertising.

3.     The fact is, “buying traffic” through tier-one sources is simply advertising.  It’s promoting a brand through paid media, and the only difference from TV, radio and roadside billboards is that the interaction is immediate via a click-thru, the very metric that all online advertisers (mistakenly) covet.  Isn’t Pepsi paying for consumers when it runs a TV commercial?  Isn’t Nike’s purpose for sponsoring an athlete ultimately to get people to buy sneakers? 

How would organic be measured for, say, a retail store – someone just walking in without having seen an ad for the store first?  What about the sign above the store that may have caught the shopper’s attention?  That costs money, too, and was installed for the purpose of driving traffic. Some might argue that these examples are of brands looking to sell actual products – they’re not advertising for the purpose of attracting viewers to sell even higher valued advertising to.  But that’s exactly what TV networks do – advertise their shows to get viewers to showcase more ads to, and nobody questions the practice.  The New York Times runs commercials to sell paper subscriptions, ultimately to boost sales and increase their value to whom?  Other advertisers. 

The online media world is a skittish to place, to be sure.  In some ways, it’s still the Wild West, with no clear, perfect means of measurement and ongoing difficulty determining value.  That can make marketers unsure of where to place their ads and spend their budgets.  Understood.  But by now, the growth in demand for online video among consumers is beyond question, and the number of quality video-based sites is on the rise.  Why begrudge them any legitimate efforts to promote their brands and attract an audience, simply because those efforts aren’t strictly social, viral or organic?  Online advertising to build viewership benefits everyone, and shouldn’t be demonized.

3 comments about "There's A Word For 'Buying Traffic': It's Called Advertising ".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Ruth Barrett from EarthSayers.tv, April 17, 2013 at 1:34 p.m.

    I am in the slow reading group. Am I to understand that if I "advertise" my all video site I am somehow tarnishing the value of it? This is the kind of topic I hear when I hang out with folks coming from the TV world and still characterizing all of us Web folks as cowgirls and boys and YouTube as all talking dogs.

  2. Bruce May from Bizperity, April 17, 2013 at 2:03 p.m.

    Of course you are right. It makes me wonder who exactly attended this conference. Was it all SEO companies? Well, clearly they are biased in favor or organic search but I have also noted a general negative attitude toward traditional advertising in the online world. Traffic is traffic. There is always ROI, even in organic search (what do you pay your SEO consultants; how much time does your staff devote to integrating key words; how much time do they spend creating and distributing content in social media, etc.). If I have a media site I will know the value of my audience and what it is worth to me to invest in building new audience. As long as the ROI is positive I am all in.

  3. Sasha Pave from Online Publishing, April 18, 2013 at 5:07 p.m.

    I completely agree with this, nicely said. When buying traffic you're simply buying advertising to drive audience.

    We as an industry assign too much value on audience size vs quality.

Next story loading loading..