Seeking Alpha

LookingConfident's  Instablog

Send Message
Longstanding investor in Looksmart (and a 70 yr old ex-tradesman), who has a passionate interest in the problems of newspapers along with their success in all their monetisation attempts made, on the web. For the "times are indeed, a changin", I feel. [17th of Aug, 2011 - Print media... More
  • Facebook - RTB - And Winning That 'Set Of Steak Knives'  1 comment
    May 8, 2012 7:54 AM

    in an article today, we're told that Jim Spanfeller who left to create the Spanfeller Media Group, a content network that includes foodie site The Daily Meal and, more recently,a sporting enthusiast site The Active Times - Jim Spanfeller (we are told) is also pretty well-known for his strong view that publishers have mistakenly tended to outsource much of their ad sales to ad networks at the risk of devaluing their premium direct sales.

    To me, Jim typifies just where publishers and a lot of their representation are at in relation to RTB and the future that's already 'now' -- and that there should be no doubt it's one that has very exciting days ahead.

    On RTB, Jim Spanfeller says:

    "I'm not suggesting that it's not worth thinking about or working on. But the level of importance that it's being given now is ridiculous, at least as it's currently practiced. - Maybe we find some new targeting mechanisms or algorithms that really make this stuff sing."

    I'd suggest to Jim there's more than a lot of 'humming' that's already going on, that he may just not quite be in hearing range of, just yet?

    In another article read today (Ben Elowitz, CEO, Wetpaint) points out that Content Is No Longer King. - Ben (himself) makes it pretty clear that 'content is no longer enough. Content has always been a means to an end. And the end has always been audience.'

    Ben Elowitz says that.... "Content isn't the goal. Audience is."

    Jim on the other hand points out ... "One of the things about this is you want to offer specialized things. We have special reports. .. We have one about cutting‑edge chefs in restaurants coming out, that's sponsored by Wusthof knives."

    Jim may expose Wusthof Knives to many visiting 'epicurean‑oriented key influentials with higher than norm household incomes', that get to read that feature, but I wonder just how many of them will Jim have known of prior to their visit, who were actually 'in market' to buy a new set of steak-knives?

    In the meantime (while I'm reading the link to Jim's The Daily Meal site as provided in the article by adexchanger and am looking over it), I noted an alert on my Facebook page that is open.

    When checking it, I was fronted with 'news' of a 'local' Masterchef show set down for tomorrow night, here on Australian TV.



    Marion Grasby

    Hey guys, tomorrow night I'm hosting a special 'Masterchef: Where Are They Now' episode. So nervous about my first host...


    Perhaps this is an example (of adexchanger data - along with some nifty RT bidded Facebook audience targeting in a global market), of the exact new targeting mechanisms kind, that Jim had made mention of?

    I had no intention (at all) of watching this show - yet I just may do so, now. ..... As they might happen to be giving out 'sets of steak knives' in a Masterchef audience participation, viewer promo!

    Always, only an opinion.


    Yet another example of Yahoo! CENSORSHIP. Folkz...

    I've posted a preview to this instapost to Yahoo just now, but you try and find my story! (A set of steak knives if you do! - How sad!)

    TopicsAvg RatingRepliesLatest Post (NYSE:ET)
    by seekingthetruth93... [ 3-May-12 06:42 pm]
    Not rated01 minute ago
    by seekingthetruth93...
    Good News for Looksmart....
    by seekingthetruth93... [ 7-May-12 11:07 pm]
    Not rated07-May-12 11:07 pm
    by seekingthetruth93..
Back To LookingConfident's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (1)
Track new comments
  • LookingConfident
    , contributor
    Comments (910) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » .
    It was a post reply of mine (at that had lead to my being banned from commenting there, I feel.


    I had suggested the 'thought' that with RTB (or, for that matter, any kind of Ad impression that happens to become available), only becomes such when a 'user' opens a content page, all over the web or, within a marketplace.


    And that the notion that there's this 'over-supply' of content is the reason why publishers must suffer poor ROI for their efforts (when they produce fresh content daily) is a fallacy, in itself.


    There are only (always) an accepted number of users at any given time, on the web or, within an advertiser/publisher marketplace.


    There are MANY pages of content that they, a user can avail, at any given time. Yet Ads only (will automatically) appear, when a user accesses any/all available content and only then.


    There is no limit to available content, yet impressions ARE limited, as to the number of pages accessed, by the number of users on the web or, in that sole marketplace. Clearly, the more pages that are accessed, the more Ads that are then shown.


    Why the confusion, then? Yet, it's still being perpetuated to this day.


    David Kaplan (AdExchanger), asks the question:


    "But don’t ad exchanges address a wider problem for publishers: namely the over-supply, practically infinite supply, of ad inventory.- Isn’t that what depresses prices?"


    Jim Spanfeller replies:


    "People talk about this oversupply of inventory. "Oh my God, there's so much inventory online. How can you not get any kind of pricing?"


    In fact, there's actually not that much inventory online -- if you take out the impressions that are never actually seen.


    Hopefully, the [Interactive Advertising Bureau] or some other industry movement, will get us to a point where some very large percentage of the currently accepted impressions will go away.


    Depending on who you talk to, that could be anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of current impressions online would be obliterated.


    ......................... at that point, you come back to a place where there's a lot of inventory still left, but it's not an indefinite, unlimited supply of inventory. On top of that, the inventory that is in quality environments becomes even more dear."




    And Jim Spanfeller is correct in saying..that 'there's actually not that much inventory online -- if you take out the impressions that are never actually seen.' - Jim then, also points out that .....'Depending on who you talk to, that could be anywhere from 40 to 70 percent of current impressions online would be obliterated.'


    If the industry moves to that "true" CPV interpretation (as a standard eCPM cost), publishers would then, all be 'cooking with gas'.


    What Does CPV Mean For Publishers And Advertisers?



    I suspect this will/should be adopted as so, too. This all augers well for Looksmart's own model, no doubts about it. Is my opinion.



    The David Kaplan (AdExchanger) Q&A Ref:


    Always, only an opinion.


    8 May 2012, 10:28 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers


More »

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.