LookingConfident's  Instablog

It was a post reply of mine (at adechanger.com) 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) an impression only becomes such - when a 'user' opens a content page anywhere 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, to the number of pages accessed - - by the number of users on the web or, in that sole RTB marketplace. Clearly, the more pages that are accessed, the more Ads (available impressions per page), 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.

.........................And 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?

seekingalpha.com/instablog/36191-looking...

I suspect this will/should soon be adopted as so, too. And I admit that I completetely missed THIS article!It surely all augers well for Looksmart's own (global) RTB CPA/CPV model, I've no doubt. IMHO.

seekingalpha.com/user/36191/instablog/se...

The David Kaplan (AdExchanger) Q&A Ref: seekingalpha.com/instablog/36191-looking...

Always, only an opinion.

LOOK: At 3:33PM EDT: $ 0.90 0.02 (-2.17%)

Looksmart's close today gives it a market Cap of $15.56M and the company has some $22.6M in cash. (End of Q1 -2012) Can someone tell me that this isn't a "crazy" (sad?) world we are sharing?

LC

ps; Wed, May 9, 2012 - $0.84 0.06 (-6.67%) MC $14.53M

Disclosure: Long LOOK and so happy to be so.

.