The Remnant/Premium Double Standard – Part 2
Square Peg/Round Hole
Although premium publishers have a few choices towards eradicating the double standard, none of the choices are particularly exciting.
First, publishers can simply refuse to sell remnant inventory and instead allocate the inventory to house ads. This can work for some publishers, particularly if they offer premium content products (e.g. subscription-based services) because it maintains rate card integrity but for the most part, this tends to hurt revenue numbers.
Second, publishers can donate their inventory to charities and non-profits. Google, for example, donates impressions to charities when its AdSense technology can’t display a contextually relevant ad. This does good for the world and simultaneously builds good will within the industry and the world at large. As with house ads, this option will cause the publisher to lose significant revenue.
Third, publishers can use excess inventory to bonus their paid advertiser campaigns. This is a great way to engender loyalty from advertisers but it may also lead a publisher down a slippery slope. It’s never good to provide too much bonus as eventually, the advertiser may to expect and demand it. Also important, in cases where the ratio of unsold inventory to total inventory gets too high, the offering of bonus inventory can end up undermining contract sizes as advertisers simply underbuy in hopes for gaining the bonus to fulfill their goals.
The sad reality for most publishers today is that there are few obvious, immediate ways to end the double standard cold-turkey.
A New Paradigm
Having talked with many publishers and advertisers, I believe that the answer may lie with behavioral targeting. Although our industry has hyped behavioral for quite some time, and it’s been around from almost the beginning, it’s still in relative infancy.
Most premium publishers today make almost all of their revenue from advertising based on consumers visiting their sites. It’s an obvious, intuitive model. But how many publishers are making money when their users are off their site? Behavioral targeting technologies today enable any publisher the ability to reach their audiences when they are off-site. If a pharmaceutical company is willing to pay a $75 CPM on a premium health site like WebMD, they should be willing to pay something more than the cost of unsold inventory on Yahoo Mail…and yet less than the price paid for contextually relevant inventory.
In other words, if publishers are willing to understand and embrace behavioral targeting technologies, they can clearly and swiftly eradicate the Double Standard. Whereas before, premium and remnant inventory were both on-site – now premium inventory is on-site…and remnant inventory is off-site.
By adopting this model, publishers can easily mitigate the losses caused by cutting off sales to DR firms…and more importantly, earn significantly more revenue than they ever did with sales to DR firms.
All possible parties win under this new model:
Premium publishers will earn significant revenues when their valuable audiences are away. This not only minimizes pricing inequities but it also reinforces the true value of contextual relevant. Enforced scarcity for on-site inventory can only help maintain pricing integrity.
Advertisers benefit from the behavioral model because they will now be able to reach premium audiences, on an incremental basis from contextual relevant locations, at a much cheaper cost than on-site placements.
Finally, top remnant inventory sellers (e.g. MySpace, Hotmail, etc) and participants in advertising exchanges (e.g. Right Media Exchange) will benefit by a continuing increase in payouts made for unsold inventory. This is made possible through the alchemy created by behavioral data.
Back to the Future
It’s ultimately up to publishers to eliminate the Premium/Remnant Double Standard. It won’t necessarily be easy, and there may be some pain before significant gains are achieved – but if we don’t address the issue, on a fundamental level, the entire medium is at risk.
Reader Comments.
Noah, you are the man.
Interesting perspective under the assumption that rational economics are the only drivers in the media buying process. But there’s a reason why brands would pay significant premiums for certain inventory. As you pointed out, there are pharma co’s willing to pay $75 cpm to be on webmd, etc. It would be interesting in discussing what factor(s) drive those decisions – quality of content, editorial control, what else?
Leave a Comment
Article Sponsor
More Features
-
Loading ...
Latest News
- [x+1] Creates The Smartest Tagging System Around March 18th 2010 ADOTAS – Today, if you happen to be at the [...] more »
- IAB’s Video Standards Tackled By ADTECH March 18th 2010 ADOTAS – ADTECH, a part of AOL Advertising and an [...] more »
- Google Search and Mobile and….TV? Oh My! March 18th 2010 ADOTAS – Google wants to dominate your screens…. Not just [...] more »
- Being Social Can Give You Viruses… New Scare March 18th 2010 ADOTAS – McAfee Inc. has come out with some bad [...] more »
- AppNexus Officially Launches Ad Platform Fueling the Real-Time Bidding Revolution in Display Advertising March 17th 2010 ADOTAS – AppNexus announced the launch of its advanced ad [...] more »
- Discovery Communications Partners With Pointroll to Launch DIG@TORIAL March 17th 2010 ADOTAS – PointRoll, a subsidiary of Gannett Co., Inc., has [...] more »
- Evolve Umbrella Planted in the Pub Garden March 17th 2010 ADOTAS – Marvel is a great brand and Marvel.com is [...] more »
Features
- For Better or For Worse? March 18th 2010
- Yahoo! Wants to Get More Personal March 17th 2010
- Creative Considerations for the iPad March 16th 2010
- Amazon Leaves Colorado Affiliates Out in the Cold March 12th 2010
- Secret Salsa Recipe: The Best Digital Marketing Mix March 11th 2010
Spotlight
AdBidCentral’s CEO, Vivek Veeraraghavan Talks Openly*What was the inspiration to start AdBidCentral? The conditions that inspired AdBidCentral came from a variety of factors in my personal [...] more...
Reader Favorites
Classifieds
- Sr Director, Marketing Services
- Senior Web Analyst
- Account Director
- Director of Analytics
- Manager, Business and Trade Media Relations
Recent Comments
- Jedd Gould: I think you miss the point. Publications have to charge because the content most are
- Gavin Dunaway: They're similar, but Ning is more a competitor to Facebook and MySpace while StumbleUpon considers
- Steve Feldman: Does StumbleUpon compete with and does essentially what Ning networks does?
- Bulent: I wonder how many of the clients would accept a media plan, that would -as