impression

Not 1, Not 2, Not 3, But 4 Display Ads Per Pageview – Shame on You Facebook

Updated May 12, 2012. Freddy Nager, Prof of Integrated Marketing at UCLA sent me a screen shot showing 9 display ads per page. The unscupulosity of Facebook is at an all time high – right up to their IPO.

THANKS Freddy Nager @AtomicTango, Prof of Integrated Marketing, UCLA for the screen grab of 9 and 10 ads per page.

http://atomictango.com/2012/04/20/myspace-facebook-continued/

Updated February 3, 2012.  This is how Facebook is growing ad revenues – SEVEN DISPLAY ADS PER PAGE – EVIL!

facebook ads

 

 

But despite this kind of “cheating” their revenues are decelerating. And there is the “danger” of advertisers getting smart and changing from paying on a CPM basis to paying only on a CPC basis — paying only when they get the click. That would mean Facebook’s revenue could drop off a cliff.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-revenues-are-decelerating-2012-2

Facebook revenues decelerating

 

Updated:  FIVE (count ’em) 5 ads per page – SHAME on you Facebook – the highway robbery gets worse.  Advertisers, quick, go to CPC (don’t pay CPMs any more).

Multiple ads on the same page run up the impression numbers, but artificially depress click-throughs because even if they wanted to, users can only click on one ad at a time. Shame on your Facebook for overtly and systematically robbing advertisers who pay on a CPM basis.

But then again shame on you advertisers who still pay CPMs when you can easily click a radio button to select CPC — Facebook even suggests a range for you automatically (see inset below).

What is the advantage of paying by CPC (cost per click) instead of CPM (cost per thousand impressions)?  Well, remember the old ad industry joke “I know I am wasting half my ad dollars, I just don’t know which half” — well, now you know.  In fact, you now know you are wasting 99% of your ad dollars to wasted impressions that get no action/clicks from users AND you know which 99%.  See infographic below. So stop paying CPMs and start paying CPCs TODAY. Your ad budget will thank you!

Just how DISMAL are  Facebook advertising metrics and benchmarks (click to see )?

According to data from comScore, in Q3 2010, Facebook served 297 billion display ad impressions giving it 23% of the U.S. market for display ads. In digital channels, since there is no longer the physical limitation of time (airtime on TV) or space (area to put ads on dead-tree pulp) companies can create “inventory”  out of thin air and magically increase revenue on the backs of advertisers still willing to pay for impressions. I guess it really is caveat emptor.

chart of the day, share of online ad impressions, nov 2010

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, November 11th, 2010 analytics, digital, display advertising, marketing 1 Comment

RTB – real-time bidding may make ad exchanges more efficient, but it still won’t save display (ads)

in response to this mediapost article
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=113621

While RTB will make ad exchanges even more efficient, it may not be that necessary.

RTB depends on 3 things: 1) inventory, which depends on how many people hit the page to generate an impression, 2) clicks, which depend on people clicking something, and 3) bidders, the more niche you get, the fewer bidders there will be.  Inventory does not change rapidly. Clicks take time to accumulate (to yield click rates, which are a necessary ingredient in the RTB calculation). And if there are too few bidders the price of the auction “item” won’t appreciate or depreciate much or rapidly. Because of these 3 things, making bidding real-time versus non-real-time (i.e. overnight) may not make it significantly better or move the needle much on efficiency and ROI.

And RTB will still not save “display” ads. The golden age of display was in the mid 90s when people tolerated ads when they read content. They are now trained to avoid looking at the top and right of web pages So while RTB may increase the ROI of display ads by increasing click rates from a percentage with too many zeros to count to something sligtly higher, display ads are still ignored by users and will still not generate measurable business impact for advertisers.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 19th, 2009 display advertising 1 Comment

the economics of advertising sucks, but it will suck a lot more soon

it’s a simple matter of supply and demand. Let’s do a thought exercise.

1.  eMarketer forecasts that retail e-commerce will grow roughly 10% per year for the next few years. This means that the total “pie” of people spending online will only grow by an average of 10% per year. Note that sales is (or should be) the goal of advertising. So that’s why we are looking at e-commerce sales and comparing it to online advertising because both are completed in the same medium and we can eliminate cross-media uncertainties and breakdown of tracking.

e-commerce

2. online advertising is still exploding with trillions of pageviews per month, thanks to social networks which throw off ungodly numbers of pageviews when people socialize with others. The Compete chart below shows the top social networks which rely on banner advertising (impression-based advertising) to make revenues. Notice that just Facebook and Myspace alone generate 115 BILLION pageviews a month. And if you consider that Facebook shows 3 ads per page, that would be 250+ BILLION impressions per month served by Facebook alone. Furthermore, the rate at which pageviews grow is 250% – 1,000% per year, depending on the site in question.

pageviews

3. In the online medium, we have end-to-end tracking from the advertising (banner impression) through to the sale (e-commerce). The banner is served (impressions); a percent of users click on it to go to a site (click through rate – CTR); a percent of those make their way through the site and end up completing a purchase online (conversion rate). Those users who are looking for something and who are considering buying something will be online searching and researching. Those are the ones who are likely to click on banner ads, compared to others who are online to do something else, like write email, socialize with friends, etc.  And if the purchase is their ultimate end-goal (to make a purchase) we have a farily reliable indicator of the growth in not only such interest but also the completion of the task — namely, e-commerce, which grows at 10%.

4. Now, if the number of people who will click grows that 10%, but the number of advertising impressions grows at a slow 250%, the ratio of clicks to impressions drops dramatically because the denominator is growing 25X faster than the numerator. Serving more ads simply will not get the amount of e-commerce to grow significantly faster. The point of diminishing returns has been reached and passed, so incremental ad impressions are ignored and useless. The number of people who will end up buying will not increase significantly faster. And given the tough economic climate the amount of sales may actually decline before it goes up again.

5. If we generalize this back to all retail commerce, it grows at an EVEN slower pace than ecommerce. When you compare this to the dramatic increase in ad impressions and the shift from traditional channels (TV, print, radio – whose impressions and audience sizes are dwindling) to online channels (portals, news sites, social networks – whose impressions and audience sizes are skyrocketing) again the ratio of sales to available advertising drops dramatically. This is a measure of the effectiveness of advertising (sales  divided by advertising spend). It was already small — it sucked — and it will get dramatically smaller soon — it’ll suck more soon.

A way to mitigate this “sucking” is to peg advertising expenditures on a success metric which is an indicator of user intent — cost per click — versus a traditional indicator of reach and frequency — ad impressions served — which from the above is NOT an indicator of consumers’ intent to purchase.  This way, advertisers only pay when someone clicks. Those “someones” click when they are looking for something and are more likely to complete a purchase than those who don’t click.

“CPC banner advertising” anyone?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, March 15th, 2009 digital No Comments

Dr. Augustine Fou is Digital Consigliere to marketing executives, advising them on digital strategy and Unified Marketing(tm). Dr Fou has over 17 years of in-the-trenches, hands-on experience, which enables him to provide objective, in-depth assessments of their current marketing programs and recommendations for improving business impact and ROI using digital insights.

Augustine Fou portrait
http://twitter.com/acfou
Send Tips: tips@go-digital.net
Digital Strategy Consulting
Dr. Augustine Fou LinkedIn Bio
Digital Marketing Slideshares
The Grand Unified Theory of Marketing