There are myriad advertisers out there, just as there are millions of products to be advertised. To get the most from this discussion of reach and value, ask yourself a few questions... and for the moment, let's pretend that the internet does not exist.
What kind of an advertiser am I? For instance, is my product one that would appear in tabloids or on late night programming? Is it a product that would be allowed to run during family hour television or on a major radio station?
Where do I want my ads to be seen and why? If in print, what distribution methods would I want to use? Free distribution newspapers, magazine covers, newspaper classifieds, wild-postings? If I used flyers, who would I trust to deliver my message? Commercial flyer delivery companies, high school students? Do I actually care who would be responsible for the delivery? Do I care about the quality of the placement, so long as the ad gets distributed?
There is no shortage of media and methods for ad delivery, each one satisfying a different set of requirements and/or limitations (from budget constraints to the genuine need to sell "snake oil"). Thus, you need to firmly establish your advertising philosophy before you can effectively evaluate your media options. In this business, ignorance is not bliss -- where (and how) your ads appear can communicate a lot about your brand.
Qualification beyond raw reach rankings
Media planners place a lot of weight on monthly ad network reach rankings. While questions surrounding audience reach, page views, and duplication with other networks are typically the first asked on any campaign RFP or vendor RFI, absent are questions pertaining to where that reach actually comes from.
Of course, it's natural to be concerned about audience reach -- does the supplier have the breadth required to connect with your clients' target markets? But, evaluating networks using reach as a primary basis for comparison can be dangerous. The problem is that (at least online) all reach is not created equal. The wrong kind of reach can be acquired at bargain basement pricing when it's purchased in bulk. Quality impressions and quality reach, on the other hand, cannot. Third-party data reports don't differentiate reach on the basis of quality, so a network's reach rank alone is not guaranteed to deliver what you might instinctively think.
Take a look at three lessons that explain why not all reach is created equal. These lessons will help planners better understand where reach can come from, and they challenge the popular view that if a network's reach is inferior to another's, it can't possibly do a better job.
Lesson 1: High reach does not guarantee high quality
The wrong kind of reach can be acquired by virtually anyone, en masse. Interpreted in a silo or as a primary point of qualification, reach is not an effective measure of quality or performance.
Networks can acquire inventory in one of two ways. They can go directly to the source and establish direct working relationships with each of their publishers (more difficult), or they can procure their inventory through third-party sources, allowing them to quickly grow their reach and inventory (easier).
Internally, we use what we refer to as the "apple tree" analogy to discuss the differences in reach among vendors. Network inventory picked directly from the source (the publisher) represents a much different product than network reach procured through the multitude of other means available (e.g., network-to-network trading, blind buys on exchanges, brokered impressions, etc.)
If you go directly to the source (the apple tree), you have the luxury of hand picking the very best apples available using whatever criteria you deem to be most important. You also have the opportunity to leave behind the bruised and otherwise blemished apples, taking home with you only the most ripe and vibrant of the harvest. In this scenario, you have complete control over quality and can guarantee that you have procured the best apples available.
If, on the other hand, your apples are picked and delivered to you by a third-party, you have no control. If your supplier is reputable, you will probably receive quality apples for the most part, but without control there is no guarantee that a bad apple or two won't make it into your bunch. You also have no way of knowing who will end up with the bad apples. And if a bad apple lands the wrong brand on the wrong page, site, or section, you could jeopardize your client's entire media plan.
The only way a vendor can guarantee that the impressions (and reach) it is supplying are the best, and are sure to meet whatever criteria are deemed important, is to select them directly from the publisher. Otherwise, those impressions are being inherited from a supplier, who is two steps away from the tree, at best.
Additional reach can be easily acquired using these "daisy-chaining" tactics, but it's just not the same quality-wise, a fact that is ultimately reflected in the way a campaign performs. Of course, a low reach network does not imply a high-quality reach network. The apple tree analogy merely illustrates why you need to look beyond raw reach numbers, and understand how that reach is derived and whether or not it satisfies your quality standards, to be truly effective in the evaluation of your options.
Next page >>
