Vastly Different Reactions To Political Online
With advertisers jumping online faster than ever, publishers, portals, and ad networks are taking two distinct paths in how they're treating political campaigns. With the 2008 Presidential race heating up, D.C. is getting online more than in any other election in history. Publishers have figured this out. Some are playing straight and fair and others are trying to earn the highest margins possible - even if it hurts them long term.
Upon receiving the RFP for a Presidential candidate, some publishers change their tune quickly. The publishers' "political specialists" get involved, "rate integrity" and "dynamic pricing" (code for keeping prices high) becomes a priority, and inventory availability suddenly shrinks. The publishers contend that inventory for these campaigns is limited and all candidates must be treated equally. Unlike TV, that's not the case online.
Every online impression is different. Not just based on the page on which it appears or its location on the page, but its place within a user session and the behavior of the user to which it's served make every impression different. So, two impressions on a publisher's main news page are not equal. The fact that publishers haven't figured out how to monetize each impression differently causes logic to go out the window and makes elevated, fixed pricing the "equalizer."
Online in 2008 has the potential to be what 1956 was for TV. Unfortunately some publishers and even some ad networks are worried more about how much higher their margins can be rather than how they can help each campaign achieve its goals. The great news is that there are some exceptions.
Some portals, publishers and ad networks have jumped at the chance to be involved with 2008 campaigns and granted the same rates we pay for our commercial and private sector clients to political and advocacy campaigns. As Washington learns more about online and discovers the many different ways in which it can be bought it will quickly learn who was fair with them early on and who was not. So, congratulations to those who are doing it right. You will win out in the long run, and you might just elevate the entire industry at the same time.
Upon receiving the RFP for a Presidential candidate, some publishers change their tune quickly. The publishers' "political specialists" get involved, "rate integrity" and "dynamic pricing" (code for keeping prices high) becomes a priority, and inventory availability suddenly shrinks. The publishers contend that inventory for these campaigns is limited and all candidates must be treated equally. Unlike TV, that's not the case online.
Every online impression is different. Not just based on the page on which it appears or its location on the page, but its place within a user session and the behavior of the user to which it's served make every impression different. So, two impressions on a publisher's main news page are not equal. The fact that publishers haven't figured out how to monetize each impression differently causes logic to go out the window and makes elevated, fixed pricing the "equalizer."
Online in 2008 has the potential to be what 1956 was for TV. Unfortunately some publishers and even some ad networks are worried more about how much higher their margins can be rather than how they can help each campaign achieve its goals. The great news is that there are some exceptions.
Some portals, publishers and ad networks have jumped at the chance to be involved with 2008 campaigns and granted the same rates we pay for our commercial and private sector clients to political and advocacy campaigns. As Washington learns more about online and discovers the many different ways in which it can be bought it will quickly learn who was fair with them early on and who was not. So, congratulations to those who are doing it right. You will win out in the long run, and you might just elevate the entire industry at the same time.
posted by Jay Friedman - Goodway 2.0 @ 10:27 PM
<< Home