Get Real About Internet Metrics: The Point is to Sell Something
I’m not blaming the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) for issuing their new guidelines last month. They had to do (finally) what they had to do, that is, establish definitions, or “standards,” for various stages in the banner ad selling/buying/experiencing process.
If you missed IAB’s big announcement, here’s the gist: Everyone now agrees on the definitions of five metrics of banner advertising: ad impressions, clicks, total visits, unique visits, and page impressions. This will allow advertisers to buy “reach” and “frequency” with more confidence.
The most controversial item was ad impressions, where publishers (website owners) wanted to set the definition to be when the ad is served, or requested, while the advertisers (media buyers) pushed for it to be when the visitor saw it. Publishers want to bill on the former, and advertisers want to pay by the latter. Discrepancies between these two numbers have been causing a lot of problems. A bad scene for all parties involved.
But what burns me up is the assumptions underlying the IAB action. The reason they were forced to get these standards pulled together is that advertisers complained that they couldn’t measure what they were getting for their money on the Web. … Excuse me? Was the Internet not supposed to be the most measurable medium ever? Where the movement of every eyeball can be tracked, where we enjoy full interactivity, a real dialogue, and a chance to develop ongoing communications?
But measurable results–click-through rates, and the attendant conversions to sales–have of course declined from their original highs. Everyone figured that those early 40% CTRs were unsustainable as the Internet matured as a medium. But few of us expected them to fall to .3%, which is where they hover today. So the click-throughs are painfully low. And advertisers are feeling that they are not getting their money’s worth.
So how do publishers and ad sales people react? They back up, and change the rules of the game. Hey, the best defense is a good offense, right? The pull the very same cop-out that general marketers pulled years ago–when they successfully divorced advertising from sales.
Do you remember the days when ad agencies were accountable for sales? Here’s how things worked: When you wanted sales growth, you invested in advertising. When your sales declined, you fired your agency.
So, what happened to that? Somewhere along the line–maybe in the 70s or so–agencies managed to persuade the world that their real responsibility was for a thing called “branding.” Meaning awareness and attitude toward a brand, a product, or a company. Measured by post research into “unaided recall” and so forth. Which may or may not have a thing to do with sales. But that’s OK. If your objectives end with awareness, then you can’t be held accountable for sales, right?
I say, the point of advertising is, in fact, to sell something. And the point of Internet advertising is to get results.
Now, I hear complaints out there that the Internet has decayed into a “direct marketing game.” I say “Bravo.” Let’s get back to the interactive, measurable medium that we originally envisioned for the Internet. Let’s not cop out again.
To be successful in measurable media, we shouldn’t run away from response. We should embrace it. There are pretty clear rules that have been developed over decades of direct marketing for how to generate response. You target carefully, make strong offers, with a call to action. You do plenty of head-to-head testing, you refine, rinse and repeat. Then, you do more of what works, and less of what doesn’t.
And while you’re at it, you get plenty of awareness and reach. Neat, huh?
So let’s not retreat to reach and frequency. Let’s not try to turn the medium into television. It’s not television. It’s the greatest direct response medium ever. Let’s go get the most from it.