<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>The Equity Kicker - Latest Comments in CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://theequitykicker.disqus.com/</link><description>Nic Brisbourne’s view from London on venture capital and exploiting change in technology and media</description><atom:link href="https://theequitykicker.disqus.com/cpm_in_the_doghouse/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:44:57 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/16/cpm-in-the-doghouse/#comment-21385147</link><description>&lt;p&gt;:)  Exactly Max, exactly.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brisbourne</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:44:57 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/16/cpm-in-the-doghouse/#comment-21263709</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey Nic - I have a t-shirt I think you'll like :-) &lt;a href="http://videoeggdesigner.spreadshirt.com/friends-don-t-let-friends-buy-cpm-T175I3703522/customize/productColor/92" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://videoeggdesigner.spreadshirt.com/friends-don-t-let-friends-buy-cpm-T175I3703522/customize/productColor/92"&gt;http://videoeggdesigner.spr...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Max</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:34:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/16/cpm-in-the-doghouse/#comment-20197740</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thank you for the reply: that's interesting detail already. That sounds like a sophisticated CPM... anyway, I appreciate the confidentiality aspect so it's difficult to get into a full discussion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tangentially, it's interesting that DFJ Esprit is backing an ad-revenue business model. Perhaps it pre-dates ad businesses going 'out of fashion'.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alex Guest</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:46:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/16/cpm-in-the-doghouse/#comment-20196844</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I can't divulge too much, but the pricing is pitched at the package level and doesn't have an algorithmic base.  The targets are agreed separately.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">brisbourne</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:29:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: CPM in the doghouse</title><link>http://www.theequitykicker.com/2009/10/16/cpm-in-the-doghouse/#comment-20196194</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The WAYN example sounds excellent. Is the pricing based on a relatively complex calculation of impressions*engagement*clicks or something of the kind? If so, that really is brilliant but I also wonder how much of WAYN's revenue comes from such campaigns. I suspect that this approach will only work for a modest proportion of campaigns with very large publishers, where the approach is more akin to sponsorship than advertising. The WAYN example seems to fit with this but I'm guessing from the limited details. &lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Alex Guest</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:15:56 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>