Re: UKNM: top sites...

[Ray Taylor]

Wallace, Darren <

Darren [dot] Wallaceginger [dot] com

> said:


 > Again, I totally agree. Interestingly, however, in the 9 months or so that

 > I've been working at Ginger, not *1* advertiser/agency has ever said to me

 > something like "I won't buy campaigns on sites that don't have an ABC

audit.

 > Or even asked me for proof of the no. of Unique visitors or page

impressions

 > that I quote!


Personally, I take little notice of ABC audits for the following reasons:


1. They are not so much audits as verification of the site's user stats. If

a site's banners are delivered by, say, Dart, then who needs an audit? Many

sites, and including some of the big sales networks still think they can get

away with manual delivery of advertiser stats. Highly suspect practice.


2. The audit covers the whole site. The ad campaigns are not audited. Why

would I want to know in a period when we ran 100,000 ad impressions for a

client, the site clocked 10m impressions? It's useful to know the total

traffic to the site so that you can be confident the campaign volume can be

catered for. But it doesn't need to be audited. And even if you did audit an

ad campaign, what could it tell you that Dart/Accipiter/etc couldn't?


3. Unlike ABC's print magazine audits, there are usually no demographic data

involved. If 10m audited impressions are delivered by a site but you don't

know if they are delivered to spotty computer games players or affluent, 40+

women, where's the value?


4. The audits are typically done once a quarter, if that. What's the point

looking at three-month old stats?


Where ABC can be of value is:


1. In drawing up an independent list of the top ten sites by traffic. But

bear in mind the problems mentioned in previous postings about relying on

page impressions.


2. In discounting page impressions served in-house, to search engines, etc.


3. The are expensive to do and take some organisation, and for that reason

can have the effect of seperating out the serious commercial propositions

from the lovingly produced amateur sites.


 > If advertisers/agencies don't demand proof of figures, then there's no

real

 > incentive for media owners to justify their traffic claims.


I agree, and we have lots of discussions with clients about the need to

delve deeper into the results of campaigns. For the most part they are too

busy with other things at the moment. But it will come, believe me. The

smart media owners, agencies and advertisers will be ahead of the game.


The kind of thing you should look at is www.redeye.com but there are many

other things that could be done, and will be done, as the business develops.


Ray Taylor

+44 20 8249 6313



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

post new media vacancies for free

uknm-jobschinwag [dot] com

 				*******************

 sponsor the uk-netmarketing list and website, contact

saleschinwag [dot] com

 for more details.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com