First Impressions on Google’s CPM Program
|
Written By Reprise Media | April 25, 2005 | Share This
|
|
If the Statue of Liberty were re-inscribed to speak to the sea of searchers and search advertisers, it might read something like this:
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free of Google’s compromises…”
Early word has it that Google’s about to launch a CPM program in order to further the network’s unbridled growth. This New York Times article describes how pay-per-click ads have been an economical way for companies to attract traffic, explicitly recognizing the ability of such inventories to monetize traffic and achieve rapid growth organically.
This move towards an impression-based model redefines the Google network as a resource for branding purposes and enables Google to monetize a far greater volume of inventory for advertiser consumption. Because Google’s running against sites’ rate cards, they’ll be able to let advertisers cherry-pick sites and inventories, and will no longer be viewed as a clearing house for unsold remnant inventory.
Most likely Google advertisers won’t have to match the CPMs previously established by site-direct sales teams and their buy-direct rate-cards. Instead, they’ll have to meet Google’s prior performance standard of CPC x CTR (in a manner similar to Google’s image ads). Will this move foster greater variance of Google advertising and give their image ads a bit more prominence within the network? Absolutely. Will advertisers accept the safeguards in place for a seamless product launch? That’s not as likely.
BlowSearch also recently launched a Cost Per View program that illuminated the risks inherent in impression-based advertising and illustrated the industry’s grave need for third-party auditing. One webmaster posted an entry in the Search Engine Watch Forum that said he expected a billing along the lines of $10, only to receive a bill for $1,240. The real issue had to do with the tracking itself - BlowSearch’s CPV product showed 240,913 impressions, whereas the webmaster’s third-party tracking mechanism downed a mere 91,244 impressions.
Ultimately BlowSearch refused to recognize the third-party number because it was obviously outside their control. Well, what about the 240K impression figure, is that within the advertiser’s control? They got billed for it, so apparently not. On BlowSearch the discrepancy turned out to be caused by a few unreliable sites later purged from the network, but with hindsight being what it is, the inventory was not discounted.
The main concern with Google’s program is that their AdSense network comprises a far greater wealth of sites, intuitively providing less advertiser-side control. Google’s Barry Schnitt tells us,
“AdSense partners, with the exception of sites with which we have individual contracts, are opted-in.”
On the bright side, the development may suggest a move away from keyword-based advertising (in the past Google has claimed they don’t want to be known as a “keyword-broker”), freeing up paths to more contextual-based advertising. The example given in the NY Times article by Susan Wojcicki, Google’s director for product management, states that the new paradigm will broaden Google’s editorial policies, enabling them to further monetize a greater volume of inventory:
“If you are on a wine site, we show ads for wine. Now we will let you advertise your cheese on wine sites.”
In other words, advertisements will no longer be required to be reflected on the landing page, verbatim.
Did we say on the bright side? We’ll never see why this looser brand-based utilization empowers Google to forego their editorial policies that have been tantamount to their core mission statement, of an unbending dedication to and protection of the consumer experience. Day by day, Google’s starting to sound no different than the Engage, Latitude 90 and Dart Ad-Sonar ad-sales networks of old. They’ll be a far more profitable Latitude90, so the investors won’t have any buyer’s remorse. But the consumers who use the network might.
Somewhere there’s a new search engine poised to capitalize on the backlash, and offer refuge to the droves of web-users put-off by Google’s ever increasing inclinations to do what’s in Google’s best interests. Let’s hope they find safe harbor.
Randy Schwartz is Director of Strategic Development at Reprise Media.
Topics: Google |