1. What is the best argument Heather Yates can make to justify charging Windham Pharmaceuticals for impressions instead of click-throughs? Does she have acceptable alternatives? Click-throughs: People showing an active interest, but not necessarily sales. Impressions: Viewers. High quality “views” (people who will by eventually) are more valuable than low quality “look-in” click-through. “wanted to learn more”. Is this more accurate? Brand and trust is unrelated to click-through. Hybrid: Impressions are important, but can’t discount trackable metrics (click-through)
“You’re getting a lot more from MedNet’s audience than Marvel gives you,” said Yates. “Your ads appear on a page with trusted medical information, our audience is attracted to your products, and we have reason to believe that our advertising partnership adds to your bottom line.”
2. What value to the consumer does a general interest site contribute that a niche site can’t? Which is the more defensible model?
Search page is top 2 pages. Help general public. Most of MedNet’s top pages are not niche sub-pages. People looking for answers, maybe be looking in wrong place. Niche sites are better if you’re looking for depth on known topic (assuming general site can’t go into this much depth. This might mostly be a marketing angle if general site has very good subsections.) Dependent on reputation, quality and type of content.
3. What steps can MedNet take to address emerging competitive threats? threats: niche, search engines.
New brand? for alternative medicine click-through, direct traffic to mednet. New/co-brand niche, click-through and funnel to mednet.
-provide scientifically based medical information to non-professional - provide info for free
- generate profit from advertising
- trusted, evidence-based, consumer health information site
- had 4.3 million...