banner companies.

[shizzle]

Ok so what I need is a BANNER company that pays at least 50c per 1000 page views. (CPM/raw) I would Want more but 50c is the lowest I can go. (1.00 would be great if its possible! OR MORE)

Anyway, I dont care about their policies on free hosting or whatever. I will talk to them and get it straightened out. All I need now are companies that pay that much for Banner page views. thanks.

 

[sEgAgEs]

welcome to 2003 ... u will never get 0.50 CPM for a simple 468x60 banner.

Maybe a few targeted campaigns , but cerainly not as average.

 

[firstmark]

I would not say you will never get 50 cents cpm for RON banners.
I am averaging more than 40 cents cpm on fastclick for banners on one of my sites this month. Granted they don't sell all inventory but most.

Campaigns are being bought on networks for 1 cpm on fastclick burst and tribalfusion. The thing that brings down effective cpm's to less than 50 cents cpm is lack of the high paying ads but they are out there, and defaults on undesireable inventory.

But it is indeed possible to get 50 cents cpm on sold banner inventory if you just select the high paying campaigns from an adnetwork. The question then is what to do with all of the unsold inventory.

Desireable topic areas can average more than 50 cents cpm on banners easily.

 

[Archbob]

www.tribalfusion.com is your best bet.

 

[BrandonC]

firstmark is absolutely right.

The key is figuring out what is this "undesirable inventory" the advertisers don't want, and then what to do with it.

The majority of inventory that goes to your default ad (or lower paying ads for networks that do not use defaults) is the result of repeat page views by the same user within a short period of time. Most CPM campaigns are frequency-capped around 1-2 views per user session or 24 hour period. This means each user can only see that ad x number of times. Once the user has exhausted all CPM campaigns, any subsequent views go to the default, or low paying ads.

Other "undesireable inventory" often include international traffic (varies per advertiser), and low response ad positions (eg below-the-fold).

The percentage of unwanted traffic varies tremendously from one site to the next, and is often directly related to the average number of pages viewed on the site by in a session (unique vs repeat) traffic. The higher the unique/repeat ratio, the higher the eprcentage of CPM to default/CPC the publisher will see.

Here is one solution that may help solve part of this problem.

Most networks will not allow their ads to be used as a "default" for another network. However, the webmaster can write a simple script (or get it from their ad provider), that cookies users, and then distributes their ad view between more than one source, either randomly, or in sequential order.

This way, each network sees only a part of the traffic, and theoretically, a higher unique percentage.

Of course, this does not address the international and low performance issues, but can especially help sites on which users frequently view a large number of pages in one session.

 

[firstmark]

Brandon most adnetworks will allow their ads to be used as a default from another network.
Burst media does, Fastclick does, Tribalfusion does, 24/7 media does, Advertising.com does, Valueclick does. Pretty much only networks that require exclusivity are going to prohibit their ads from being run through another network first.
Also from my experience networks that don't allow their ads to be used as defaults from another network are poor performers.
As a general rule exclusivity requirements, ad serving fees, or default fees equals a poor network for publishers.

 

[BrandonC]

firstmark,

Let's not confuse "exclusivity" with allowing ads to be used as a default for another network.

You are right that exclusive deals are not for most sites, especially small to medium sized, and with a general, broad based audience. For most sites, entering an exclusive is a bad deal because only a small fraction of the inventory may be sold, and they are prohibited from selling it through other sources.

However, whether or not a network allows its ads to be used as a default is another subject. It may be true that a lot of networks do allow this... about half of networks I am aware of... more than half if it can be accomplished without modifying the HTML code in any way. If a network has a policy of not allowing this, that doesn't mean you can't run other advertising on the page (as with an exclusive), simply that that particular network does not want the default traffic from another network. Often, networks with this policy actually have HIGHER CPM ratios and average CPM net to publishers, because they deliver higher quality traffic to the advertisers, keeping the higher paying ads on your site.

One pitfall you forgot to mention, with the networks that allow otheir code to be used as a default.... eventually, if they notice that they are getting low quality (that "undesirable" traffic you referred to), the publisher will see fewer and fewer of the higher paying ads over a period of time. The network may not care that the traffic comes from a default, but it does care about the quality. Generally, networks that enforce quality have better paying ads overall.

Publishers can still have the benefit of of using several ad sources, as I suggested in my last post, through a combination of using some networks as defaults (when permitted) and dividing up inventory on the front end between multiple sources, in an effort to increase their unique/repeat ratio to each source.

 

[firstmark]

Brandon I would be interested to learn about the networks that are half of all networks according to you that do not allow their ads to be used as defaults.

I can't think of many, none that are good options for a publisher at least.