Comments on: Banners versus Search http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/ Moving from a Low Accountability to a High Accountability Business Model Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:03:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Jim Novo http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-739 Jim Novo Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:42:07 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-739 All, thanks for the comments. Alan, I understand the "market size" argument, but I'm not sure that a dollar spent offline on "Branding" when it moves over to online is still a dollar spent on Branding. It may be spent on the "space" that was once devoted to Branding (banners), but used in a different way. One of the challenges in talking about this area is a lack of consistent definitions, and perhaps I'll try to <a href="http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/06/21/web-site-is-ad/" target="_blank">post something of a model on this topic</a> later on for you all to tear apart.  For example, a dollar spent on TV is not necessarily a "branding" dollar (it depends on the message, right?) and so to equate strategy with media outlet can be misleading. Seems to me this is where we are headed: when a piece of media is sold at auction instead of for some "implied value", the buyer must have a fairly clear notion of what that piece of media is worth to them; how else to they determine a bid? Whether the measurement lens you view the media buying through is branding or direct or hybrid, comparisons of "performance" are going to be a lot easier to make than before and we will begin to get a hierarchy of value for different media "jobs" - introducing new products, awareness of existing products, driving purchase, etc. All, thanks for the comments.

Alan, I understand the “market size” argument, but I’m not sure that a dollar spent offline on “Branding” when it moves over to online is still a dollar spent on Branding. It may be spent on the “space” that was once devoted to Branding (banners), but used in a different way.

One of the challenges in talking about this area is a lack of consistent definitions, and perhaps I’ll try to post something of a model on this topic later on for you all to tear apart.  For example, a dollar spent on TV is not necessarily a “branding” dollar (it depends on the message, right?) and so to equate strategy with media outlet can be misleading.

Seems to me this is where we are headed: when a piece of media is sold at auction instead of for some “implied value”, the buyer must have a fairly clear notion of what that piece of media is worth to them; how else to they determine a bid? Whether the measurement lens you view the media buying through is branding or direct or hybrid, comparisons of “performance” are going to be a lot easier to make than before and we will begin to get a hierarchy of value for different media “jobs” - introducing new products, awareness of existing products, driving purchase, etc.

]]> By: Mike Welling http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-724 Mike Welling Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:24:16 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-724 I'm interested in seeing how all this plays out too. The reasons behind the double click purchase? I'd like to know as I never got banner advertising to work too well for the price paid. I’m interested in seeing how all this plays out too. The reasons
behind the double click purchase? I’d like to know as I never
got banner advertising to work too well for the price paid.

]]> By: John Dawson http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-718 John Dawson Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:19:38 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-718 One thought on this - i don't think Google are going to "conquer" the branding budget any time soon - at least not in years 1-3. The deal done in the US with Walmart and others to buy TV airtime and resell it via the auction process is a great experiment and will prove whether other media can be commoditized in the same way as online. However the same argument about impressions not equalling value applies offline as well as online. Unfortunately for Google they can’t measure exposures to TV / Press / Radio in the same way as they can for banners / adsense. Until 2005, I’d never done a study into advertising effectiveness which showed online banners achieving any amazing returns. In the last couple of years, a couple of pieces of research I did showed some limited impacts in some technology categories but returns weren’t anything to write home about. Online search can achieve quite a lot for a small to mid-size business but it’s often doing little more than conversion moving people to purchase online rather than via a different channel. I think the most interesting deal out there for Google will be one which combines advertising, mobile phones, RFID technology and set top boxes. That would give Google access to each stage of the marketing process for online, TV, Radio and outdoor channels since Google could work out who was exposed to which message and when. That’s got to be at least 5-10 years away! One thought on this - i don’t think Google are going to “conquer” the branding budget any time soon - at least not in years 1-3. The deal done in the US with Walmart and others to buy TV airtime and resell it via the auction process is a great experiment and will prove whether other media can be commoditized in the same way as online. However the same argument about impressions not equalling value applies offline as well as online. Unfortunately for Google they can’t measure exposures to TV / Press / Radio in the same way as they can for banners / adsense.
Until 2005, I’d never done a study into advertising effectiveness which showed online banners achieving any amazing returns. In the last couple of years, a couple of pieces of research I did showed some limited impacts in some technology categories but returns weren’t anything to write home about. Online search can achieve quite a lot for a small to mid-size business but it’s often doing little more than conversion moving people to purchase online rather than via a different channel.
I think the most interesting deal out there for Google will be one which combines advertising, mobile phones, RFID technology and set top boxes. That would give Google access to each stage of the marketing process for online, TV, Radio and outdoor channels since Google could work out who was exposed to which message and when. That’s got to be at least 5-10 years away!

]]> By: Alan Rimm-Kaufman http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-711 Alan Rimm-Kaufman Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:46:49 +0000 http://blog.jimnovo.com/2007/04/17/banner-search/#comment-711 Hi Jim! You wrote and smilied: "Branding value aside, of course." And "I guess there will always be Branding folks who buy impressions and perceive value in them, without any further measurement." Yup -- and those Branding advertisers are IMHO the key to the acquisition. According to the Jeffries investment bank, the breakdown between online search and online banners is about 50/50, roughly $15b apiece. Link: http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=56363 Very crudely, lets say that $15b in search is primarily direct marketing (ROI based), and the banners are primarily branding (awareness based). But online today is only 6% of total advertising (stat from same article). Of the other 94%, I'd guess 90% of that is about brand (CPG, TV, billboards, mag display ads, etc), and only 10% about direct (catalogs, direct mail). So while direct vs. brand might be roughly 50/50 in 2007, as big ad budgets flow online, the lion's share of new growth is going to be the traditional advertisers doing their branding stuff. Page & Brin & Google will certainly rewrite the entire media buying landscape -- auctions make good economic sense to price space. And P&B will encourage more marketers to think quantitatively. But P&B won't turn every advertiser into a direct marketer... that isn't going to happen. So as online grows, the additional growth opportunity IMHO is online branding. Google's stock price @ $470 is pretty much back to where it was in October... Wall Street is voracious for growth. Direct marketing ad sales aren't enough to keep GOOG climbing -- they need to conquer the brand budgets. Cheers -- Alan Hi Jim!

You wrote and smilied: “Branding value aside, of course.”

And

“I guess there will always be Branding folks who buy impressions and perceive value in them, without any further measurement.”

Yup — and those Branding advertisers are IMHO the key to the acquisition.

According to the Jeffries investment bank, the breakdown between online search and online banners is about 50/50, roughly $15b apiece.

Link:
http://publications.mediapost.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticleHomePage&art_aid=56363

Very crudely, lets say that $15b in search is primarily direct marketing (ROI based), and the banners are primarily branding (awareness based).

But online today is only 6% of total advertising (stat from same article).

Of the other 94%, I’d guess 90% of that is about brand (CPG, TV, billboards, mag display ads, etc), and only 10% about direct (catalogs, direct mail).

So while direct vs. brand might be roughly 50/50 in 2007, as big ad budgets flow online, the lion’s share of new growth is going to be the traditional advertisers doing their branding stuff.

Page & Brin & Google will certainly rewrite the entire media buying landscape — auctions make good economic sense to price space. And P&B will encourage more marketers to think quantitatively. But P&B won’t turn every advertiser into a direct marketer… that isn’t going to happen.

So as online grows, the additional growth opportunity IMHO is online branding.

Google’s stock price @ $470 is pretty much back to where it was in October… Wall Street is voracious for growth. Direct marketing ad sales aren’t enough to keep GOOG climbing — they need to conquer the brand budgets.

Cheers –

Alan

]]>