Discussion

By Patrick Henry on Sep 24, 2007

Under this scheme, wouldn't the publisher’s worst nightmare be to hear every one of its advertisers say, “I LOVE that idea! Sign me up. From now on, I want to buy ALL of my space from you this way.” Now the publisher has to toss out the rate cards (there are no more predetermined rates to offer). Suspend the circulation audits (who cares about circulation breakdowns now?). Lay off the sales force (there’s nothing to sell, just response to measure). Cost-per-action pricing makes it all brutally simple. Yes, I’m exaggerating. But what’s to be made of this: “Depending on the needs of advertisers, the cost-per-action metric could be based on simple expressions of interest or completion of the sales process.” Does that sound like a recipe for argument between publisher and advertiser about what constitutes a billable response? But it won’t be a long argument. In the end, the metric will be whatever the advertiser says it’s going to be—and it won’t be anything as soft as a “simple expression of interest.” Don’t print publications have enough trouble proving their worth as advertising vehicles without setting the bar higher than they can jump? Cygnus and ID Media don’t seem to worried, but for most magazines, cost-per-action pricing is a pistol aimed squarely at the foot.

By Jean-Marie Hershey on Sep 26, 2007

The Cygnus/ID Media scheme could turn out to be a brilliant moon shot or an earth-bound misfire. Why wouldn't/shouldn't the cost-per-action model do for print advertising what the Nielsens did for television, subscriptions have done (or did) for newspapers, or what the "hit" parade has done for Internet advertisers? I guess time will tell. It always does. Speaking of rocket science, however, consider this quote, generally attributed to Albert Einstein: "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted."

By Noel Ward on Sep 26, 2007

The problem with the pay-per-response model is that there are too many independent variables. First, print ads typically need to be seen 3-4 times before there's a measurable response, so these ads will still sit there, below readers' radar, like they always have, until they penetrate or speak to a reader's specific need. Second, and totally outside the control of the publication or ID Media, is the fact that the vast majority of print ads aren't all that effective as ads, and are only part of a company's marketing mix. So what is being measured? The media? The ad? The offer? Of course, any means of measuring ad response is good: it puts a media source on the spot to prove their worth and lights a fire under ad agency creatives to do something that works. But beyond measuring the most basic of interest levels, this dog won't hunt. And 800-numbers? Hello? Ads have had 800-numbers in them since Moses wore knickers, so all that's new is that these numbers supposedly aid response tracking and give the publication a chance to put their own spin on the ad response, which cannot help but be self-serving. So riddle me this, ID Media: In an age where everyone's first thought when they see a print or broadcast ad that catches their interest is to go to a website, why would anyone pick up the phone? Everyone knows --or at least suspects-- that a 800-number call will put you in touch with a faceless, 17-layered voice mail system or some tele-sales drone sitting Mumbai. True or not for this advertising measurement scam (oops, scheme), it seems to me to be a gasp of desperation by companies that just don't get the fact that the world has changed. What would work a whole lot better is what advertisers can do themselves by putting a URL in their print ads that's unique to each publication they advertise in so the response goes directly to their own website and sales support people. But that's REALLY the last thing a print pub would want to have happen because they can't control the spin on the response rate.

By Jean-Marie Hershey on Sep 26, 2007

"True or not for this advertising measurement scam (oops, scheme), it seems to me to be a gasp of desperation by companies that just don’t get the fact that the world has changed." Well said, Noel, especially the bit about desperation. What hasn't changed, however, is that people still read magazines - or watch television or consult Google, for that matter - because the vehicle speaks to them on some level and is meaningful to them. The same can be said for advertisers, who are, after all, readers first, and who make decisions about where and how to advertise, based on the emotional connection they make with the publication. The "cost-per-action" buying platform can't help but subvert that dynamic beyond what Internet competition and the loss of ad pages have already accomplished, by confusing service to the readership with "self-serving spin," as you put it, based on ad response numbers. It's like trying to cure the patient by cutting off his head, or worse, by carving out his heart. How's that for "brutal simplicity"?

By Noel Ward on Sep 27, 2007

Magazines and their ad pages may decrease, but aren't going away anytime soon, and having been on both the ad agency side and advertiser side of the table I see both perspectives. But the old CEO's lament, "I know half of my advertising is ineffective, but I don't know which half," continues to be true. Advertisers and their ad agencies need to work together to ensure print ads speak to their intended audience AND have a mechanism that tracks initial response. After that, it's up to the advertiser to make the sale and monitor the sell through. For companies too lazy to be proactive about this, the deal Cygnus and ID Media are doing may be useful, but it's not going to do what either hope and I predict it will go away in less than two years. Maybe a lot less. There are simply better, cheaper, faster and more accurate ways of doing the same thing.

By Michael Josefowic z on Sep 28, 2007

As Jean-Marie points out with the Einstein reference, “Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.” The problem is a little like using Standardized Tests to measure educational acheivement in High School. One of the as yet uncountable values of print ads is in associating the product with the "brand" of the magazine. For example, the fact that a product is advertised in the New Yorker plausibly implies that this a product that would be interesting to people who read the New Yorker. The other unique feature that cannot, as yet, be measured is the fact that the product enters the physical environment which I, the reader, are scanning. The contextualization of a product within the physical world of a magazine is much closer to the retail experience than the hunt and gather of the internet. Just being part of the environment of a particular magazine builds an expectation of the product that goes a long way to creating the trust necessary to maintain a brand. If this makes sense...it implies that magazine publishers should keep growing their "tribe" (usually called their "brand"), then focus on advertisers who understand the value of being part of that tribe. And charge the approriate rate for admission.