These Don't Seem To Go Together

GM's ad budgets are taking cuts.

But this is today's Y! home page.

How Political Polling Needs to Change

By no means is political polling becoming irrelevant, but perhaps it's a tad less accurate? Whatever the case, this is fascinating stuff.

Email Surprise

A lot of folks will look at this and notice that very few seniors are social networking or texting. Or that there is a big drop-off between the 25-34 grouping and the 35-44 grouping for major activities.

The real nugget here? Nearly everyone emails - except 15-17 year-olds! Sure, 94% is still high but most marketers would think that certainly all young folks email. The reality is that with IM (whether through a traditional or social networking-type client) and texting now make it such that teens don't have any reason to touch email.

Watch out corporate america! Training these folks will involve more than expected in the future.

Hispanics Online - Smaller Volume But More Influential

As an ad network operator you'd think the last thing I'd say is that there's value in $12 (or $50, for that matter) inventory. But let's be honest. For reaching the right audience with guaranteed placements in premium positions within specific sites, it's often worth paying the first-run prices from publishers to get the right inventory.

But take CBS Sports Interactive and Conde Nast have both recently announced that they're going to try and compete with the networks on their own, by offering remnant deals through their in-house rep.

So let me get this straight. Your rep comes in and starts talking about a package with guaranteed inventory that blends out around $12. You say, "you know, that's great, but let's focus on that $4 inventory you've announced in the press lately." How is that a good thing? The benefit of selling to networks for publishers is that the advertiser is not guaranteed to run on any specific site, and that performance by site generally isn't shared. But now the agency can get performance by site and can be guaranteed they'll run on those exact sites.

I truly don't believe this threatens the network model because one huge benefit of a network is the ability to run across hundreds or thousands of sites and get the optimization that is inherent with the network model. But if publishers are looking to devalue their inventory more quickly, this is certainly one way to do it.

There Is Value In First-Choice Inventory - So Why Are Publishers Killing It?

As an ad network operator you'd think the last thing I'd say is that there's value in $12 (or $50, for that matter) inventory. But let's be honest. For reaching the right audience with guaranteed placements in premium positions within specific sites, it's often worth paying the first-run prices from publishers to get the right inventory.

But take CBS Sports Interactive and Conde Nast have both recently announced that they're going to try and compete with the networks on their own, by offering remnant deals through their in-house rep.

So let me get this straight. Your rep comes in and starts talking about a package with guaranteed inventory that blends out around $12. You say, "you know, that's great, but let's focus on that $4 inventory you've announced in the press lately." How is that a good thing? The benefit of selling to networks for publishers is that the advertiser is not guaranteed to run on any specific site, and that performance by site generally isn't shared. But now the agency can get performance by site and can be guaranteed they'll run on those exact sites.

I truly don't believe this threatens the network model because one huge benefit of a network is the ability to run across hundreds or thousands of sites and get the optimization that is inherent with the network model. But if publishers are looking to devalue their inventory more quickly, this is certainly one way to do it.