Much has been
written about the inefficiencies of buying and selling Internet
advertising. But what about the cost of research and resources to the
buyers and sellers? This is another factor in the willingness of major
agencies and major clients to participate in all that the medium has to
offer.
A friend looking for a job called me the other day to ask if I had a
certain resource. He was looking for some site information. When I said
no, I felt obligated to explain how we at Mediasmith, proponent of many
of these sources do not subscribe to them all.
There are several issues, but money is at the root of it all. Because
of the nature of the Web, many more resources are needed than with
traditional media. Web dollars are in no way equivalent to spending in
other media. Sure, they probably will be some day soon. Web spending, no
matter whose numbers you look at, is far below that of National Cable
TV, Local or National TV or Radio all of which have one source for the
industry to support. Consumer magazines, 3-4 times the size of the Web
in spending has two sources for audience research. This research is good
for defining media vehicle audience, programming audience, reach and
frequency, pre-buy estimates for campaigns and post buy-delivery on a
proof of performance basis. The interesting thing is that, whether there
is only one resource (ARB for radio or Nielsen for TV) or two (MRI or
Simmons for consumer magazines), economies of scale and the competitive
marketplace are recognized and pricing reflects that competitive aspect.
In addition, all of these are priced based on the spending of the agency
within the medium or client subscribing and taking into account ability
to pay.
The Web has yet to settle down to a few vendors. This has pricing
policies all over the lot, seemingly without any sensitivity to the
pricing of the rest of the media world. Most of these companies that
started out early have a flat fee model. Everybody pays the same. This
means that as the major agencies get more and more of the pie, the
vendors do not get more money unless they raise their price to everyone.
The result, in addition to shutting out medium and small size players,
is that the vendors leave money on the table by servicing fewer and
fewer agencies over time.
Right now, from a pure research standpoint, we have @Plan and
NetRatings from Nielsen, NetScore and Media Metrix from comScore but all
that they can give us so far by themselves is site-based data. We depend
on third party ad servers like DART and Atlas DMT for POP data and soon
for R/F. Because of the complexity of the data, we will need both
ratings data (User Centric Measurement) and third party server data
(Server Centric Measurement) to compute accurate reach and frequency.
And don't even get me started on the cost of third party ad serving.
With lower CPMs, it is just plain too expensive to the client to sign
off on for many campaigns. The result being we don't always get the
tracking we need and cannot prove the efficacy of the campaign.
So, no matter how you cut it, we must buy at least three resources to
do all of the jobs I can do with one for other media. Each of these
resources costs 2-5 times what the resources for other media cost on an
absolute basis. And the other media involve more spending in the
industry. So what is the delta? On a marketplace basis, my company is
probably paying at lease ten times what we should be paying for
Interactive media resources.
We are paying for development. I recognize that. But to some degree,
development must be paid for out of equity, not the customer base. Then
the customer base pays back over time. That's how it generally works.
But not apparently in this case. I don't know whether to pray for
consolidation or more competition. But to paraphrase Jackson Browne "we
need either more of it or less of it". The competitive mix in
Interactive media research right now is not working in the markets'
favor.
It is no wonder that many of the heads of the major media and
advertising agencies think that doing Web advertising is inefficient and
that they cannot make money at it.