04 May 10 We have always paid for performance
Paying for performance has always been the intended idea behind most advertising, despite appearances that real estate was actually being purchased. If it was TV, then performance was deemed to be the ratings of the TV show. If it was newspaper then it was circulation or readership. To the media buyer though, this actually appeared to be a real estate resource buy (rather than an attention resource buy). The reality was that the TV station had an attention resource, and the more money an advertiser threw at it, the more of that attention resource they could buy. Sure enough the attention would then be cut up as the entertaining parts were interrupted with the advertising parts (which were rarely entertaining, but surely more effective when they were).
The resource was limited, so the more demand there was, the higher the price.
Then something changed. It became apparent that interruption marketing was over, and even fringe marketing wasn't too effective (ie banner ads on the fringe of my attention).
So advertising had to make the transformation into information. Relevancy to the user started to matter.
This was great for the publisher, because content was less distinguishable from advertising (even though it was clearly stated).
This was great for the advertiser because advertising was more effective.
This was great for the user, because advertising was more informative.
However, the advertiser, used to paying for a time slot, or an ad section, ignored the fact that what they were actually buying was an attention resource. The price of the slot was determined by the performance of the surrounding content, and the demand for the piece of real estate.
Nothing has changed. Advertisers still pay for performance. Only now, advertisers shouldn't be buying a time slot or a piece of real estate. Advertisers should be buying attention to their message and engagement with their products. If that can't be delivered, then it is likely that the real estate or time slot you are paying for, isn't all that relevant to the message you are sending. (At least relative to the places that perform better)
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks