BRAT meeting on the 22nd

My previous post here managed to bring me some e-mails in my already full inbox.

First a request via e-mail from Arina Ureche (General Manager BRAT) asked me to delete a paragraph. Yesterday I met one of the BRAT founders and explained me how hard it was for them to set up the organization. At that time, the American know-how kicked in and people managed to get along. Now, the Internet project is more colorful and as I heard one of the companies already had a thought of retiring the offer for the study.

The second interesting mail came from ARBOmedia saying that they won’t pay for the study nor share costs – of course this is just an e-mail exchange so this is not official. I figured it out that they probably will pay for the study and after that will retain monthly fees from the publishers.

THE GOOD NEWS is that in their contracts with the publishers the 9.2 paragraph states that the publishers have to decide together with ARBOmedia the company who will perform the study. This probably means that every publisher in ARBOmedia has the right to express their preference for the company conducting the study/costs/etc. in order for ARBO to vote for a certain company. Till now, ARBOmedia asked the publishers only a website list to be included in the study.

THE BAD NEWS is that the independent consultant, mr Manuel Sala, Technical Manager at OJD Interactiva (spanish ngo similar to BRAT) came from a market much different to the one we have here. The FACTS are that in Spain there are NO audited demographic studies, NO user profiles and NO geo tracking. No, why is this guy a consultant for an audited demographic study?

I’ve translated some of the spanish pages of OJD, and I found out about their “new” system:

The new system of audit for electronic means is not based on archives of log of servant as it came making until now. From now on, the audit will be made through the inclusion of a code (TAG in ahead) in the pages of the own means, which will make a request to the main servant of measurement, entering this way the traffic generated from the same pages unloaded by the users.
This TAG, consists of few lines Javascript and it does not have any graphical representation in the pages since it gives back an image it is transparent and it can be including anywhere of the page between and .

A direct implication of the new system, that is once implanted, does not make lack daily send logs of servant by FTP, with the consequent consumption of resources in bandwidth time. (Don’t even want to know about THEIR FIRST SYSTEM :))

Another advantage of the system, is that we can almost resist the information in real time through the user interface who will arrange itself to accede to the statistics of site. (Woow! 🙂 )

An important improvement with respect to the previous system, is that new very useful statistics are included, like the one of unique users, listing of sections of site, etc. (no comment 🙂 )

Imagine the brain damaging technology they have over there to show the unique users but let’s hope that the spanish consultant told BRAT more about the organization and shared some know-how from other areas.

I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens on the 22nd this month 😉

One Reply to “BRAT meeting on the 22nd”

  1. Hi bloggers,

    First of all I want to congratulate Bogdan for the good blog he built and maintains here.

    Secondly, regarding the BRAT study, I am smiling when I see any post on this topic.
    Why… you may ask? Because I was among the few people 4-5 years ago who spoke in the BRAT general assembly when they voted for the birth of the internet department.

    Now, 4 years later, I see not much happened ever since. meaning still a lot of talk and very little action.

    BRAT, in my view (at present time, after seeing some other online markets in action) has no place to perform the audience study for the Romanian internet market.
    It just does not have the profile, technical power and know-how to perform such a study.
    Even if BRAT is a non-profit organization, their 4 years long strive to create the internet department and the national audience study for the internet market is just an effort to expand their business.

    In other countries (USA, Canada and a few European countries) the internet audits performed by IFABC bureaus are veery EXPENSIVE and usually have a limited number of websites that participate in the study (mainly websites owned by major print publishers). And what is the result … just audited numbers that confirm that site has indeed 25,485,264 pageviews.

    My vision (the current one that is different from the one I had a few years ago) of what an audience study for the internet should deliver can be summarized in a few bullets:
    1. how many visitors a certain website has (regardless if the website registers to the system monitoring the traffic or not). This number should be given more as a guideline and not necessarily as an absolute number.
    2. what is the demographic profile of the visitors of a certain site and the possibility to compare with other sites
    3. what are the duplications and advantages for the advertiser X to use site vs. site

    Once this system is in place and data collection starts, the company that performs the study would go out to ad agencies, ad brokers and ad networks and advertisers … and publishers (why not) and would sell their product.

    The key here is not to tell an advertiser if site x had last month exactly 20 million pageviews or actually 19,850 million. This is the job of the sales reps and of the analytics software … and at the end of the day it does not mater … because I, as an internet media planner I do not care how many impressions a website has a month … I care if that specific website can deliver me the 5-6 thousend impressions that I would like to buy.

    I do not need to know who the no. 1 site is (even if it is fun to know).
    What I care is what the duplication between 2 sites is, and I need to be able to make scenarios like the following: I have 20 k left in my budget and I want to make the most out of it. What do I choose … shall I go with site A (say a well known portal) or with a combination of sites B and C (medium known vertical portals). Who gives me the least duplication, the maximum fit on my target and the most “bang for my buck”…

    But most likely this will come in Romania in the next 2-3 years, once the media planners and advertisers will start thinking their campaign on an ROI basis and not an a what sites get what basis … or worse, what ad network gets what … should I give the money to MPI or to Adevolution, SMI or ARBOmedia.

    I am curios to see how it will turn out.
    See you soon.

Comments are closed.