According to the eMarketer analysis, content sites deliver better results to advertisers because viewers are more likely to be engaged with what they are reading/watching. In comparison, visitors to a portal are more likely to be searching quickly through a variety of choices (e.g. - weather, email, headlines) and therefore less likely to become fully engaged with the content and the associated ads. eMarketer refers to this experience as a "fast-food" mentality.
While I agree with the above analysis, I think there's a fundamental issue that the OPA and eMarketer fail to address. While ads on content sites may be comparatively more effective in their impact (ie. - improved awareness, messaging, purchase intent) , what is really important is each medium's comparative ROI. To assess that, one needs to include price data and campaign objective data.
So while placing an ad on an OPA member site may result in greater impact for an advertiser, it will also be more expensive than comparable portal or ad network purchases. While purchasing ads on leading content sites may be a good idea for driving traffic to a targeted, high-value product, it may not be as appropriate for driving broad awareness of a mainstream dvd release.
For the OPA to issue its report about the benefits of advertising on content sites is no surprise. It's just necessary to put it within perspective. Successful marketers have to balance their campaign goals and budget with the available channel options.
No comments:
Post a Comment