So Much For AOL's Local Content Strategy

AOL has been making a lot of noise about how local content bringing in local ads will be the cornerstone of its rebirth. That was theoretically the reason for buying HuffPo (i.e. apply HuffPo's mastery of SEO and user community to local content). Nobody's looking to AOL to reproduce what daily newspapers do (or used to do, anyway) in cities and towns across the U.S. but many people (myself included) were hoping for something more than content farming.

So this article, taking aim at Patch (AOL's so-so network of local blogs), makes me sad (because content farming tactics are infecting the entire internet) but also curious (because it makes it clear how hard it is to get those local ads). If local newspapers, down to the free crapola circulars you get outside the supermarket, can make a bundle on local businesses, why can't AOL? Should be sorta simple, right?

As a journalist, the issue of who is going to pay for content has become a question of "How do I create content that I can market on the Internet?" I'm getting the sense, as time goes on, that either you charge a ton for highly valuable content (Bloomberg), run a shoestring operation (Gawker) that makes (or loses) a very small amount of money or.....you content farm. Trying to invent a new model like Patch might work, but it doesn't seem like it's going to work big-time.

Online Publishers Association Concludes Ads Are Most Effective On Content Sites

Recent research from the Online Publishers Association (OPA) uses brand metric data to conclude that ads placed on content sites (OPA members) get better results than those on portals or sold through ad networks. The conclusion is clearly self-serving and eMarketer suggests that it is common sense that content sites will deliver superior results to portals and ad networks because of content quality.

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.

Marketers know that there are many tools in the toolbelt when balancing their channel mix. There are pros and cons for choosing display vs. search vs. email vs. microsites. Likewise, there are pros and cons for the myriad of choices available within each channel.

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.