We have written
before about the value of online media optimization. For most media,
planning has the most clout, closely followed by buying (the operable
assumption being that it doesn't do any good to get a great price if it
is on the wrong inventory).
While we have been evaluating optimizers for what seems like years,
it all came to a head for me a few weeks ago at a Gaspedal event
(worthwhile although the food could have been better). I had a
conversation with a guy who said his company did optimization. He gave
me his boilerplate elevator speech and I asked if they optimized on post
event or post impression in addition to post-click. He said that they
definitely optimized on post click and rewound into his elevator speech.
I tried to get him to comment on post event tracking but I was wasting
my time. This was the second time in recent months where somebody talked
to me about their optimization capabilities and did not know what post
event or post impression metrics were all about. Frankly, I thought we
had washed out the know nothings from the business. Oh, well.
When I talk about optimization today, I am limiting my comments to
optimization of banner campaigns. We do recognize the value of and use
search engine optimization. There seem to be five kinds of banner
campaign optimization:
- technology included with an ad server
- standalone technologies which do not provide ad serving but work
with third party ad servers
- standalone technologies which work with third party ad servers or
can act as a server and optimizer solution
- companies who tout optimization but really want you to turn your
media buying over to them and
- hiring some really smart college grads to watch your third party
ad server data and make decisions accordingly.
All of the ad servers now have some sort of optimization included
with them. This includes BlueStreak, DoubleClick's DART, Atlas/DMT,
MediaPlex, etc. These tend to be rudimentary at best. The Atlas method
does not optimize but makes recommendations to the human who optimizes.
Using your ad server as an assist seems to be the only affordable
technology available.
Paramark and Poindexter each have standalone optimization systems
that work with third party ad servers. However, they are both more
expensive than ad serving. This makes it extremely high out of pocket
(hundreds of thousands of dollars per year with any kind of volume) and
thus, hard to pass through to all but the most highly educated client.
Keep in mind that with the low CPMs that are occurring these days, even
third party ad serving fees are under attack from some clients. We've
had buys so efficient that the third party ad serving fees alone were
greater than our commission. Poindexter can also serve the ads, but the
combined serving and optimization charge makes me wonder whether they
aren't really just trying to get your ad serving business at a premium.
Advertising.c om would love to do your optimization. IF you turn your
buying over to them. This is so that they can do the buying, ad serving
and optimization. This is a sales ploy as old as ad sales itself. If it
really worked, there would be no need for media departments. With all
due respect to advertising.com, do you really trust them to do the right
thing when they will make more money buying their sites than others?
As usual, this all comes down to money. When you do the math, you
realize that you can hire a number of smart people to watch campaigns
and do optimization for the price of these technologies. Some of the
technologies like Poindexter are truly neat. But I have yet to find an
agency that can justify the cost of using a service like this on an
ongoing basis. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. In the meantime,
we are going to stick with keeping the human in the loop. Technology is
wonderful, just not always better or more efficient.