Let see how the models of “Cost Per Click”, “Cost Per Hover” and “Cost Per Thousand” are Unfair for a Sustainable Economy. To do so, let’s briefly review the definitions of “Cost Per Click”, “Cost Per Hover” and “Cost Per Thousand”.
The “Cost Per Click” or CPC (or Payment by Click or PPC) is the amount paid by an advertiser to a Search Engine (example Google) or a Site Editor (example Facebook or a Price Comparators), for each click of a visitor on an advertisement that redirects him to the advertiser’s site.
In addition, most “Cost Per Click” advertisings are based on an auction system. Therefore, the “Cost Per Click” tends to increase frequently, so on failing to increase its budget the advertiser becomes less visible.
There is a programmatic and deceitful derivative of “Cost Per Click” which I named “Cost Per Hover”. Indeed, on dealing with the “Cost Per Hover”, the visitor is automatically redirected to the advertiser’s site, when its mouse hovers the advertisement. This yields in a higher bounce rate on the advertiser’s site, resulting in an even more excessive conversion cost.
The “Cost Per Thousand” is the amount that an advertiser pays for a thousand displays of its ad, or a thousand views of the video that displays its ad. A display does not guarantee that the visitor has actually seen the ad, nevertheless it gets paid.
Why should the visitor pay when he has not bought anything?
An advertiser of Digital Advertising is mostly motivated by:
- A visitor who buys his goods or services
- A visitor who registers on his site
- A visitor who subscribes on his newsletter
However, according to their definitions above, neither the “Cost Per Click”, nor the “Cost Per Hover”, nor the “Cost Per Thousand” guarantee these objectives to an advertiser of Digital Advertising. Indeed, the advertiser is obliged to pay, even if the visitor does not buy anything, or the visitor does not register on his site or the visitor does not subscribe on his newsletter or other…
As a consequence, these Unfair Digital Ads are attractions designed to redirect visitors to the advertiser’s site, sometimes in spite of the visitor, and cunningly. Unfair Digital Advertising generates tens of billions of dollars that are ultimately paid by consumers. Worse, these tens of billions of dollars are largely subject to Tax Optimization, and this contributes mechanically to the increase in taxes of citizens of most countries…
In the particular case of the trickery of the “Cost Per Hover”, how can an advertiser expects a purchase from a visitor who is redirected to his site in spite of himself, without having clicked on purpose?
Digital Advertising seems to deliberately ignore that the visitor is an intelligent person and more and more socially responsible. Indeed, with the advent of a Participative Web and increasingly active ConsumActors, the Unfair Digital Advertising is becoming more and more outdated and risky for the Sustainable Economy.
If the advertiser really has confidence in the Engagement of its goods and services, then why does it not only implement the Loyal Digital Advertising?
Let’s see how the models of “Cost Per Lead” and “Cost Per Action” are more fair to a Sustainable Economy.
The “Cost Per Lead” is the amount paid by an advertiser, for example, for each registration on its website or each subscription to its newsletter. The “Cost Per Action” is the amount paid by an advertiser, for example, for each purchase.
Unlike the case of “Cost Per Click”, “Cost Per Hover” and “Cost Per Thousand”, the “Cost Per Lead” and “Cost Per Action” only charge the advertiser if the visitor subscribes to a Value Proposition (purchasing of goods and services, subscription to a newsletter or others). Thus, in Fair Digital Advertising, “Cost Per Lead” and “Cost Per Action” require an economically valid action from the visitor. That’s why, in the Age of the Participatory Web, by highlighting the Engagements of the Brands and the Goods and Services, the ConsumActors constitute an obvious support to the Fair Digital Advertising.
How Native Ads get into play for an exponential business growth?
In addition to prevent the consumer not to pay abusive cost, and so being cost-effective for the advertiser, the Fair Digital Ad offers a nicer experience for the consumer.
Indeed, an Advertiser is better at smoothly adjust its ads inside the web page a consumer is reading, not only to prevent intrusive or disruptive digital ads, but also to nicely give the consumer the opportunely go further the topic of the web page that he is reading.
This is where Native Ads get into play. Because Native Ads mix with the hosted web page content, they are more likely of interest and get shared over the reader’s network.
Such an aspect of shared of Native Ads means for activating an Exponential Business Growth for the advertiser, at an outstanding cost-effectiveness.
To go further, take a look here how the Augmented Press helps the ConsumActors to stage the Engagements of Brands and Goods and Services.