It never did. You monopolized distribution and were able to stuff a bunch of useless stories along side of a ton of advertising. Sold the idea that being associated literally and figuratively with such a noble cause would deliver results for advertiser. Not to say that in some age or in some locality that didn't work, but why be surprised when that house of cards starts to fall? Welcome to the internet - people don't need your rice paper or affiliated rice website to get news (long form or short form).
The Times recently had a story on how newspaper web revenues are just so-so to stalling. They ask a bunch of other people at old media how they are doing it. Generally all old media hate the AD NETWORKS as they are just scavengers (but, a necessary evil when you only directly sell 30% of your inventory). So their answer is to limit supply. Cut out the NETWORKS, then we'll really have the premium, premium hooch that advertisers what.
So fricking wrong!
The AD NETWORKS exist because they don't care about your brand, your journalistic ethics plaques on the walls, or you. They exist because advertisers want to deliver a message to an audience no matter where they go. It's the same, finding that audience on TheNewYorkTimes.com or shovelsandspades.com.
The other thing that AD NETWORKS know and you don't is making pennies work. Newspapers and big media got drunk on the stupid advertising dollars. 50% was always wasted, but if we perpetuated the closed system, rate card would always keep going up. AD NETWORKS place a value on a audience and acquire that audience for a few pennies less and sell it for a few pennies more. That foundational spread is efficient for smart publishers and smart advertisers. Cuts out the bloat from traditional publishers and makes the agency fees more transparent.
Welcome to small ball. Think like an audience (and stop lying to yourself that they care about YOUR brand of wire aggregation), thinks lots of pennies and get good at it.
Comments