ClickZ media buying writer, Tessa Wegert, completes the second of her two-parter on ad exchanges this week. See #2 on ClickZ: “Getting to Know the Ad Exchanges.”
Wegert highlights just four of the ad exchanges – only Google/DoubleClick, Yahoo!’s Right Media Exchange (RMX), ContextWeb’s ADSDAQ and Microsoft AdECN were worthy of mention to Wegert. (GlamX, AdBrite, what happened to Turn?, BlueKai, Traffiq)
But, any article on ad exchanges at this early stage of the game is a good article even when its filled with exchange-supplied marketing speak. Example of said speak comes in the AdECN blurb:
“AdECN calls its pricing model “value-based pricing”; through its auction system, advertisers can buy on a per-impression basis and pay only what they deem an impression to be worth to them and their clients.”
Oh really?
Bartender I’ll have one impression on CNET for 2 cents, three impressions on WSJ.com for 3 cents, and put my next margarita in a to-go cup.
The AdECN quote is reminiscent of the New York Times attempt at explaining the exchange model and the iinherent tactics for advertisers and pubishers in a July 2008 article. Times writer, Stephanie Clifford wrote, “The major appeal of exchanges is that with some analysis, advertisers can buy ads one by one, and track the performance of each ad.”
Hey, nobody buys per impression! They buy bundles or blocks – exchange style. Yes, bids can be can be changed on the fly using technology, but we’re not so sure the idea of “per impression” optimization makes the exchange model sound scalable.
Not surprisingly, at various points in the article, exchanges were able to stuff in the “brand” word as part of their ongoing drive to present exchanges as a premium opportunity.
Wegert’s final words challenge the “remnant” moniker given to exchanges to-date: “It’s time for us to propel things even further forward by exchanging our old media standbys for new opportunities and our misgivings for exchange-based campaigns.”
OK, exchanges… time to put this on your press page.
