ESPN’s move to kick ad networks out of their premium content and brand has sparked several classic debates about publisher monetization. What is the best, and most profitable, way to monetize your content?
There are certainly two strong positions to be debated:
- Commoditization of ad inventory can dilute the perceived value of the content and brand
- Unsold ad inventory can move in volatile swings (20-70% according to paidcontent.org) is lost revenue
Jason Calacanis, in classic shock PR fashion, chucks in the hyperbole “Ad Networks Are For Losers” to highlight value diminishing characteristics of many of these networks:
- Dilution of the brand and channel conflicts
- Juvenile or intellectually insulting campaigns
- Competitive advertising on your own site
Beyond this I think there is a more subtle discussion on nature (sophisticated mathematical formulas and algorithms to target clicking consumers) versus nurture (the art form of compelling a consumer with creative and content to make a motivated gesture).
Is our advertising becoming too sterile and mathematical? Murthy Nukal, of Adchemy, certainly believes science and math takes the day in performance marketing. In fact, they built an entire company around the science of lead generation.
Meanwhile, strong financial balance sheets and takeover targets, like Bankrate.com, seem to subscribe to a more content and value driven approach to lead generation. This may be of significance as we see others like Forbes and Federated Media aggregating content networks to create premium advertising venues.
Which is best?
- Use math and science to detect and capitalize on inherent (natural) behavior patterns, or
- Nurture consumers into action with content and information?
