RE: UKNM: RE: Conflicting Statistics

[ben]

[Sam says: long email to follow...]


So lets start again. Folks, if this is boring just skip to the conclusion at

the bottom.


> Damian, (oops, typo last time round)

>

> Happily and in 5 minutes off  the top of my head.

>

> 1) Your method of recruitment is self-selecting. Trouble is the people

> selecting themselves are those after a couple of pounds here and there.

> They

> are not the ABC1's most advertisers want.

> >Wrong.  Advertisers can target the ads to whomever they please.  Using

> Prizm and Memphis.

>

Yes, I assumed that the advertiser could select who their ads went to (and

could use the demographic and geographical information you gathered in doing

this (exactly, how thick did you think I was being)). Trouble is I can

probably find the people I can advertise to on bepaid easily (and probably

more cheaply) elsewhere. You may get ABC1's on your site but I doubt there

will be many and I doubt even more that they will be the ABC1's I want.


My comment was and is on the quality of the people deciding to use the

service (self-selected time-rich (and to make it very clear here, time rich

(i.e. with spare time) NOT cash rich) people are not the market most

advertisers are after, they're the easy ones to find).


Your statement adds nothing here. My statement still holds, as in any

postcode you can find time-rich users and these will make up the vast

majority of people on the system. Trouble is I can talk to these users

easily elsewhere.


> 2) The information you have about the customer is fixed, based on what

> the

> customer told you and may not be accurate.

> >Again, wrong.  Prizm has 75% of the population detailed on it's

> database.

>

OK, so you have postcode/zip  profiles as well the information entered. Not

much different really.


And this assumes that the address  provided is accurate and complete but

most of the payment methods you use it don't need accurate addresses.


Also remember even the most honest person sometimes tells half truths

(Hampstead instead of Islington, or address right, postcode slightly

wrong)....


And that's before student's after a few extra quid (and who can probably

legitimately have an address in Hampstead and meet all the criteria you

outlined).


> 3) By specifying that certain areas may pay more interests (up to $120

> an

> hour) you may actually be encouraging users to select interests based on

> their perceived guess as to where the top bits of income are going to be

> and

> not on their actual interests.

> >Wrong.  This information has been off the site for months.  Obviously,

> the more information we have, the more likely it is you will be

> targeted.  End of story.  There isn't a 'more attractive'

> hobby/interest.

>

Well the ten reasons for joining listed on the site said that to me and I

didn't look at your site months ago the first time I had a look was on

Friday.


One page says from $20 up to $120 an hour, another gives some high brow

interest options (business alongside low brow options (I'm guessing,

cookery, football...) Now if you are after money which options do you think

most people will select.


These reasons alone tell me to pick areas that will attract advertisers and

you will be paid more (it may be higher rate per advert or more adverts but

you will be paid more).


> 4) By not watching where people visit there is no confirmation that the

> information contained in 2 is accurate. Little or no follow-up

> information

> is going to be available. As such I don't know what proportion of the

> people

> I'm buying to watch my ads are what they say they are (say Company

> directors) and not Burger Flippers at MacDonalds.

> >Wrong.  Claritas' Prizm is about as accurate as you can get.  Map this

> with TGI and our own database and you get very trustworthy and very

> definable universes.


Yes, but I strongly expect:-


1) That the geographic and demographic information you will be given will

not be 100% accurate.

2) And, that you have no method of checking whether it is right or not.


3) That the universes is not as clearly defined as hoped for. Daddy is a

company director, son a burger flipper. Now who is watching the ads, and are

you sure of that?


4) You're not going to have members in the right part of the universe. They

may meet 90% of the criteria but its part of the other 10% I'm after. Those

that are there are those who want to be not those I would want to advertise

to.


5) Remember all you are doing is offering Audio / Visual direct mail to

people who wish to receive it. Now exactly how many are going to sign up for

that.


Also, as in direct mailshots, it may be reaching the house but is the

intended receipent reading it?


>

> 5) Finally for now, you are judging the quality of your results by

> click-thro ratio's. Not a reliable measure at the best of times (it

> doesn't

> relate to any tangible result in the way that an affliate marketing

> scheme

> could). Furthermore, it is possible to encourage people to visit the

> site by

> offering them extra money to do so. Doesn't that somewhat screw the

> value of

> these figures.

> >Well, CTR seems to be a 'standard' in judging the success of the

> campaign.  As someone on the list was discussing 10% as >good, I wanted

> to let people know that there are better CTRs out there.  Namely ours.

> The first ads we put out will be tests.  We will publish the results as

> we find them.  We are also in the process of commissioning Millward

> Brown Interactive to do research for us in the effectiveness of banners

> vs superstitials vs bepaid.  As MBi are quite well known in the field

> after the AIM study, we thought they would be quite reputable.  We will

> also be looking into the branding that seeing an ad you chose to watch

> can provide.  I'll wager it's more than a banner.

>


CTRs are standard ratios I agree (but hands up anyone at a company that uses

CTR for anything more than a step in the COA equation) but I truely dislike

the following:-


1) The Assumption that the CTR on day 1 will be the same as day 50.

2) The Assumption that CTR rates relate to sales (hint they don't, it

depends on the site) and see the comments below.


While I would accept that the CTR may be higher than banners and

superstitals I'd trust ratios from Day 100 far more than from Day -50. And

anything sold on the basis of the results on day -50 scares me witless.



> As for encouraging people to visit the site by further compensating them

> being paid, I fail to understand.  How does this differ from a special

> offer or time-limited discount?

<added space for clarity)

> It's exactly the same thing, we're just being a little more direct.


No its not. If I offer a time-limited discount or voucher the person may

well buy something. I will ship it at the lower price and through the

quality of my service gain the following:-


1) A method of future communication

2) A reason for future communication.

3) A customer who may come back and even tell their friends.


Paying money for someone to visit a site is not the same. It merely says:-


Come have a look around I'll give you a $1.

So I give the person that $1 and they go round 3/4 pages and disappear never

to be seen again. Worse I've now spent $1.50 to $2, and I don't know

anything about them and I've not even had a chance of proving itself.


>

> Thank you for pointing out your thoughts as to how our business is

> massively flawed.  Also thanks for giving me the chance to point out the

> errors in your assumptions.


NOW, If you had actually answered a single one of my points I might have

changed my mind. As you DID NOT ACTUALLY answer a single one of them I

definitely won't.


Sorry, but because this is a list of online marketing people I made an rash

assumption that everyone (including you) understood the basics of targeted

advertising (i.e. use all the information you have to hand) and took it for

read that bepaid used targetted adverts. I really must remember that there

are times when you need small words and big pictures.


Ben



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 the UK's totally managed affiliate marketing solution.

 ukaffiliates.com >> the net.working

 http://www.ukaffiliates.com /

salesukaffiliates [dot] com (mailto:salesukaffiliates [dot] com)

 telephone: 020 7691 1880 / fax: 020 7691 1881

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  To unsubscribe or change your list settings go to

http://www.chinwag.com/uk-netmarketing or

helpchinwag [dot] com