The battle lines are being drawn in the Great Debate. After citing inappropriate use of publisher logos in sales presentations, Ari Rosenberg implores premium publishers to abandon indirect sales channels in his “Dire Straits” article:
“It’s like premium publishers are involved in an arm-wrestling match, but act like their elbows are not even on the table. That’s because their other hand is accepting a bribe to throw the fight. Premium publishers can’t wean themselves off of the monthly revenue they get from indirect sales channels that count towards their overall quota. So while individuals working at a premium publisher appear to benefit from accepting this revenue, the publisher’s own brand value inches closer to defeat.
“It’s ironic that an iconic brand like the New York Times will build a wall around its digital content to ensure users sense an increased value — but won’t build a wall around its own ad impressions to protect their value and its own sales team.
“These are dire times that call for dire measures. The time is now for premium publishers to take their heads out of the sand and dig out of the hole they created by collectively abandoning their indirect ad sales channels (yes. including Adsense).
“Before any ad network person jumps in (like, say, fellow Online Publishing Insider Jason Krebs) and says this is just another diatribe from a guy who hates networks; hold off a sec. I am not suggesting these indirect channels don’t have significant value to offer buyers and clients. They do, but by premium publishers pulling their logos completely out of the conversation, there will be more clarity in what ad exchanges and ad networks bring to the table, by making it clearer what sites are not seated and which ones are.”
I’m still left thinking there must be a happy compromise. How can advertisers and agencies get what they need while rewarding the publishers who create the best content?
