<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Premium vs. Remnant — (Part III — Remnant)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/</link>
	<description>Ramblings about online advertising, ad networks &#038; other techie randomness</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:29:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Joydeep</title>
		<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/comment-page-1/#comment-28260</link>
		<dc:creator>Joydeep</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Feb 2008 23:33:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/#comment-28260</guid>
		<description>i don&#039;t think this is a convincing case.

brand advertisers can make relative comparisons between different inventories/campaigns using click through rates - but i would strongly argue that they still cannot figure out the value of a click. it&#039;s still a cost center with money to spend - not earn. absent concrete valuation measures - the demand curve for these folks would tend to be price inelastic as u depicted in the previous article.

so the underlying dynamics that drive publishers to segment inventory have not changed. there&#039;s still a price inelastic curve and a price elastic curve. yes - clicks have become more important than before - but this is with respect to the competition (as opposed to arguing that the demand side has become homogenous).

also - we should be able to draw parallels here. for example - Ross and Marshall stores (or for that matter Priceline) are analogous to remnant ad-networks. in even businesses that are decades (if  not centuries old) - we find pricing and marketing differentiation based on the heterogeneity of demand . (Appeal to the image sensitive customer through upscale stores and charge premium prices, send unsold inventory to stores that appeal to price conscious customers).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i don&#8217;t think this is a convincing case.</p>
<p>brand advertisers can make relative comparisons between different inventories/campaigns using click through rates &#8211; but i would strongly argue that they still cannot figure out the value of a click. it&#8217;s still a cost center with money to spend &#8211; not earn. absent concrete valuation measures &#8211; the demand curve for these folks would tend to be price inelastic as u depicted in the previous article.</p>
<p>so the underlying dynamics that drive publishers to segment inventory have not changed. there&#8217;s still a price inelastic curve and a price elastic curve. yes &#8211; clicks have become more important than before &#8211; but this is with respect to the competition (as opposed to arguing that the demand side has become homogenous).</p>
<p>also &#8211; we should be able to draw parallels here. for example &#8211; Ross and Marshall stores (or for that matter Priceline) are analogous to remnant ad-networks. in even businesses that are decades (if  not centuries old) &#8211; we find pricing and marketing differentiation based on the heterogeneity of demand . (Appeal to the image sensitive customer through upscale stores and charge premium prices, send unsold inventory to stores that appeal to price conscious customers).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bennett Zucker</title>
		<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/comment-page-1/#comment-980</link>
		<dc:creator>Bennett Zucker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jun 2007 14:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/#comment-980</guid>
		<description>Mike, An optimization engine *should* be able to manage against reach &amp; frequency objectives. Atlas, Doubleclick and others have tried to address this for years. The challenges are many: (1) access to enough measurable audience (not impressions) to be representative of the targeted population; (2) standardization of site hierarchies and user behaviors in order to ensure equivalent metrics across many sites; (3) consistency among central and site-side servers; (4) agreement on what constitutes sufficient reach and efficient frequency across categories, etc. 

Of course we know that a large-scale exchange platform addresses many of these issues. But the exchange model&#039;s focus on campaign performance needs to evolve further to incorporate audience metrics just as comprehensively in order to meet the needs of buyers for projectable R&amp;F data.

R&amp;F goals come from marketers&#039; studies of their target markets - who they are, what they do, where they live, how they make purchase decisions, etc. -  which must then be translated into media objectives. If there is no media objective related to clicks, online purchases, or other online-based measures, which is the case with many consumer goods and high consideration products, then the marketer must rely on surveys, store sales, and other measures that all require active or passive audience participation. BZ</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, An optimization engine *should* be able to manage against reach &amp; frequency objectives. Atlas, Doubleclick and others have tried to address this for years. The challenges are many: (1) access to enough measurable audience (not impressions) to be representative of the targeted population; (2) standardization of site hierarchies and user behaviors in order to ensure equivalent metrics across many sites; (3) consistency among central and site-side servers; (4) agreement on what constitutes sufficient reach and efficient frequency across categories, etc. </p>
<p>Of course we know that a large-scale exchange platform addresses many of these issues. But the exchange model&#8217;s focus on campaign performance needs to evolve further to incorporate audience metrics just as comprehensively in order to meet the needs of buyers for projectable R&amp;F data.</p>
<p>R&amp;F goals come from marketers&#8217; studies of their target markets &#8211; who they are, what they do, where they live, how they make purchase decisions, etc. &#8211;  which must then be translated into media objectives. If there is no media objective related to clicks, online purchases, or other online-based measures, which is the case with many consumer goods and high consideration products, then the marketer must rely on surveys, store sales, and other measures that all require active or passive audience participation. BZ</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/comment-page-1/#comment-565</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 14:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/#comment-565</guid>
		<description>But where do the target Reach &amp; Frequency goals come from?  Some sort of performance measure based on exposure, brand awareness, something else?  Shouldn&#039;t an optimization engine be able to manage these goals somehow?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But where do the target Reach &amp; Frequency goals come from?  Some sort of performance measure based on exposure, brand awareness, something else?  Shouldn&#8217;t an optimization engine be able to manage these goals somehow?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/comment-page-1/#comment-560</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 May 2007 10:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikeonads.com/2007/05/16/premium-vs-remnant-%e2%80%94-part-iii-%e2%80%94-remnant/#comment-560</guid>
		<description>Almost agree with your suggestion that premium vs remnant is outdated for the above reasons.

However, if an advertiser is reserving the inventory, then you betcha it is to ensure a target Reach and/or Frequency goal is achieved. Perhaps it is helpful to think of premium as ads that reached the most viewers - during their first few page impressions on a site vs viewers that have already consumed many page impressions during their session as remnant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Almost agree with your suggestion that premium vs remnant is outdated for the above reasons.</p>
<p>However, if an advertiser is reserving the inventory, then you betcha it is to ensure a target Reach and/or Frequency goal is achieved. Perhaps it is helpful to think of premium as ads that reached the most viewers &#8211; during their first few page impressions on a site vs viewers that have already consumed many page impressions during their session as remnant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
