Commentary
The Wrong Answer To The Final Question
- by Ari Rosenberg , Op-Ed Contributor, January 29, 2015
The reality is that sales calls happen on the ground with media buyers. They often sound like the following example, where the problem clients want to solve with their online ad dollars is how to drive more exposure to the most expensive ad the client has ever built: its own Web site.
“Have the KPIs changed since the last campaign?” asks the salesperson.
“Yes,” answers the media buyer. “The client invested in greater functionality on their site. So now we’ll be measuring traffic back to their site and the depth of those visits.”
“So your client has enriched the content experience on their site because it increases consumer engagement with their brand. We know something about that. Have you seen our site lately?”
advertisement
advertisement
“Nope.”
“May I update you?”
“Go for it.”
“In December, we had 9,217,000 uniques, according to comScore. They averaged 3.2 visits and turned 2.7 page views per visit session. Our visits per unique have climbed 29% since we added dynamic updates on the best prices available for tech products.”
“Can we look at coregistration opportunties?”
“Absolutely. I also have a custom program mocked up for you to look at. I understand you need to drive traffic back to your client’s site and you want those visits to generate more depth -- we can help with that. However, awareness of the benefits in upgrading to a 4K Ultra HD TV has to play a part in driving consumers to invest in one. The custom program I’ve mocked up brings those benefits into focus for our audience. May I walk you through that idea?"
“Sure.”
“See this button in the upper right-hand corner of the site? It reads ‘4K Me,’ and when a user clicks on it, he or she will see an enhanced version of our site that mimics the greater clarity and colors a 4K Ultra HD TV delivers. Your client would have 100% SOV of this ‘enhanced site,’ and their logo will be underneath this button, which will appear on every page view of our site.”
“Pretty cool.”
“Anything else you need me to cover?”
“I have one final question. Is your inventory available on the exchanges?”
“Yes.”
When a media salesperson is forced to answer that final question about exchanges by admitting that “yes, you can buy our site’s audience with greater targeting at a lower price,” he or she is directing buyers to solve their client’s problem without the salesperson’s help. Trying to then sell directly, tacking on a “high-touch” solution to a more ambiguous problem, is like trying to sell a car to someone who walks into an Avis.
The problem media buyers face is that they can only reach a certain portion of their target audience on low-quality sites through the exchanges. So they need to increase reach and improve the mix of quality sites on their media plan, which is why salespeople at premium sites get meetings.
Programmatic (private and open) is a buying solution, not a publishing one, but the promise of sales revenue without doing any selling has seduced an entire industry into marching off a cliff -- and media salespeople are the ones who will be pushed off first. AOL is laying off sales people, and Tim used to be one. What do you think Marissa is going to do? The rest will follow despite the promise that both direct media sales and programmatic sales can coexist.
The irony of getting rid of media salespeople is that it’s advertisers who will ultimately suffer. That’s because rates sold programmatically, while enjoying misleading increases now, will consistently decline over time. As a result, content quality on premium sites will plummet. Consumers will scatter as even more ridiculously invasive ads disrupt the user experience, and the premium sites advertisers need to extend their audience reach will eventually perish.
Online premium publishing is getting killed. The murder weapon is programmatic, and this death will be ruled a suicide.
Well stated, Ari.
Excellent piece, Ari. Few people on either side of the fence are stopping to think about the long-term "evolutionary" implications of their actions. The pendulum has made a full swing from the days (not so long ago) of advertisers being at the mercy of salespeople who would charge high fees with little justification or performance metrics. Perhaps the negative consequences of programmatic will lead to a swing back toward a more human-assisted system, but with more focus on quality, value and accountability. That would not be such a bad thing...
Great article, and a lot to think about. Thanks Ari.
Great points as always. Really good salespeople sell ideas that achieve marketing objectives for clients. There are becoming fewer good ideas.
Agreed with the others, Ari. Excellent piece.
Publishers are their own worst enemy. But why? I'll offer a couple of explanations you might find accompanying the corpses:
- Greed. I've heard publishers describe working with exchanges and networks as "found money." As you point out, long term it is quite the opposite. A race to the bottom.
- Debt/being part of a public company. Both put unnatural pressure on publishers to accept losing propositions.
- Inferiority complex. Why should buyers pay business-sustaining prices for audience access if publishers are willing to under-cut their sales people on exchanges?
So why are premium publishers
Thanks Chris and I agree with your reasons why this is occurring. It's really the ad network mistake all over again -- premium publishers should NOT make their most targeted inventory available at lower prices -- that has never made sense.
A Jim Meskauskas compliment means a lot -- Jim it's been forever -- tag me at Ari@performancepricing.com and let's meet up for a cup of coffee. Thanks for weighing in -- sames goes to Dan, Chris Carter and of course Paulo - much appreciated.