In this space last week, I talked about the launch of the New York Times Site Sessions on New York Times Digital as being the introduction of day-part buying, a model borrowed from broadcast and radio. I have received several letters in response taking me to task for calling the concept new. Bob Shaffer from AccuWeather.com, for example, said, “The article regarding day-part targeting had the tone of revolutionary, but in fact, it has been around for a while. I have used it very effectively for over a year.”
I apologize for the confusion. I do recognize that the concept has been around and used, but it hasn’t really been institutionalized, for lack of a better word, until now. Actually, Steven Comfort, Consulting Associate for Upstream Group, says what I mean best: “New York Times Digital did not invent the concept of day-part targeting on the Web, or surround sessions for that matter -- they've simply productized and marketed the concepts better than other publishers.”
Comfort goes on to say, “In 1997 I was VP-Sales at 24/7 Media in San Francisco. At the time, 24/7 was using AdForce (previously known as IMGIS) to serve our ads. We ran network-wide "roadblocks" for advertisers (including Intel on the day of the Super Bowl). A roadblock on 24/7 at the time made an advertiser the sole commercial presence on over 150 sites, reaching over half of all Internet users (Surround Session-like, no?). AdForce's software allowed campaigns to run in specific time segments (day-part targeting-like,no?).
“The fact is, five years ago, very few advertisers were interested in being the sole advertiser on a site (or network of sites) -- and even fewer were interested in day-part targeting.
“What's really happening today is that online marketers/buyers are maturing -- and sales people are getting better at making their ‘products’ look more like those found in traditional advertising mediums.”
Joshua Chasin, Principal, Warp Speed Marketing, Inc. also weighed in on the topic, stating that, even if not new, day-part buying needs to be considered. “There is no question that the introduction of day-part buying-- and more broadly, session-based selling-- is the inevitable next step the Internet must take in order to add value to both buyers and sellers,” he said. “The quicker everyone throws in the towel on page views and impressions, the better.”
Chasin agrees with Universal McCann’s Elias Plishner’s assertion that day-part buying would result in differential prices for inventories. He doesn’t view it as a downside, however. “Such a development is to be welcomed, rooted for, applauded!” said Chasin. “Because it means-- wait for it-- that there are actually units of advertising online for which SUPPLY OUTSTRIPS DEMAND (this phenomenon being the economic driver of increased rates.) Is it really a good thing that every available impression has the same perceived value among clients (that is to say, next to nothing)? Right now the average Website has, what, a hundred trillion impressions a month to sell? Is there even such a thing as a Website selling out? I assume the answer is no, that such a proposition is ridiculous. No wonder online Costs per Thousand (or Costs per Anything) are so cheap -- inventory is as scarce as sand in the Sahara. Ever try selling a cup of sand to a Bedouin?
“The migration-- long overdue-- from impression-based to session-based selling will create a cap on available inventory, thereby creating tangible value for Internet advertising which will benefit sellers, agencies-- and best of all, clients, who will now be able to navigate the vast desert of online advertising by assessing, attributing, and associating value to it. The net result will be greater use of online advertising by advertisers, who may even begin to treat it as an above-the-line item in the plan.
“In no way can increased demand be construed as a bad thing for a business. Look at television. The up-front market that recently closed far exceeded projections. Is anyone denying that this is an extremely positive vital sign for the overall health of the advertising business? Or is it understood that increased demand is good?
“Finally: Twenty years ago, I was coming up from a New York City subway station when I passed a street merchant selling watches. ‘Real Rolex watches,’ he was barking. ‘Two dollars!’ I walked past him, laughing to myself. ‘Two dollars for a Rolex’ I thought. ‘What am I, stupid? I mean, fifty dollars, MAYBE I stop and take a look. But two dollars? That's just plain crazy!’ Walking away, the irony of what I'd just experienced (I was after all on my way to an MBA-level marketing and consumer-behavior class) was not lost on me.
“With the advent of session-based advertising, advertisers are going to stop passing by the online advertising merchant's stand, and stop automatically assuming that the stuff can't be worth anything. Suddenly, they're going to start browsing, pricing, buying.
“Scarcity. Perceived value. The grease that makes our economy go.”
What other concepts should publishers consider in the quest for scarcity and perceived value? Or is this even the right direction to go? What other strategies have you used?
Send your comments to dawn@imediaconnection.com.
