While correlating user behavior to the business model is the only way to judge revenue performance, surprisingly few publishers can differentiate between a page view that is aligned to the business model vs. a page view that is not. Consequently, many publishers are chasing low value page views and jeopardizing their long-term viability. Might as well hire some bots…Matt Shanahan is vice president of strategy at Scout Analytics, a specialist in digital revenue optimization. Measuring the number of page views as a key performance indicator (KPI), is a growing practice among publishers. In fact, editorial and development teams are increasingly being rewarded for boosting page views, with some publishers even shaping their entire site just to generate page views.That is not a business model! Let me prove it with an extreme example.Any publisher can deploy bots to generate page views for their site. No advertiser will pay for those page views, because the page views have no advertising value. While page views could be used as a KPI by the editorial team to generate more content for bot consumption, no revenue is coming through the door to keep them employed.The right metric for publishers should be revenue performance indicators (RPI), which means the metrics tie directly to the business model. Many publishers are looking to build recurring revenue streams from loyal audience members, and in this case, RPIs such as audience size, loyalty, and level of engagement are meaningful. However, some publishers are relying on non-recurring revenue from SEO acquired visitors, and in this case, RPIs such as percentage share of search and time on site become more relevant. In paid content, RPIs such as price per article or price per device become critical. And for all of these business models, average revenue per user (ARPU) is the RPI for benchmarking efficiency and profit (see my post on ARPU here).
Close A British government-backed review released on Thursday (14 May) is seeking billions of dollars to fund the development of 15 new antibiotics to counter antibiotic resistance.The review, led by former Goldman Sachs chief economist Jim ONeill, said the lump sum payments could add up to $16-$37bn (£10-23.5bn) over 10 years, but should only be made when companies have fully developed a successful bug-killing drug.Seen in a global context, and compared to the cost of inaction, its actually peanuts. Critically linked to that were also calling for an innovation fund, about $2bn perhaps over five years, that the pharmaceutical industry itself essentially finances, ONeill said.The review says that companies that develop new antibiotics should be awarded prize money of up to $3.5bn for each new drug, instead of selling the medication at a profit.Because if you come up with the specific incentives and rewards were suggesting to get them to produce more drugs, its essentially giving them a lot of financial relief. So we think its only right that they play a role in financing the research at the early stage, ONeill added.The prizes, of between $1.5bn and $3.5bn, should be funded in part by the pharma industry itself, ONeill said, probably also with input from national governments and the global taxpayer.I think the proposal were suggesting is better than what the pharma industry would like itself, which is much higher prices so they can just charge a lot more for it. I dont think that would be a better option for every individual in this country and elsewhere in the world, he said.The successful drugmaker would then be required to make no profit from its sales of the drugs to governments and healthcare providers around the world, ONeill added, saying this approach would de-link the profitability of a drug from its volume of sales.I think there are two core problems. Theres a demand problem and a supply problem. The paper weve published today focuses all about the supply issues of getting more drugs, he saidIn recent years, bugs resistant to multiple drugs have evolved at the same time as drugmakers have cut back investment in finding new ways to fight them, creating a global health threat as superbug strains of infections like tuberculosis and gonorrhoea have become untreatable.ONeill, who was asked last year by British Prime Minister David Cameron to take an economists view of the problem, said far too little is currently invested in hunting for new drugs against drug-resistant infections.In his initial report, ONeill estimated that anti-microbial resistance (AMR) could kill an extra 10 million people a year and cost up to $100tn by 2050 if it is not brought under control.ONeill has also proposed that a $2bn innovation fund financed by drug companies should be created to invest in early-stage research and speed up development of new medicines to fight drug-resistant superbugs.Sally Davies, the UK governments chief medical adviser, welcomed ONeills latest report, saying it would stimulate important conversations between governments, pharmaceutical companies and other funders.
Road Accident logoThree auto-rickshaw passengers were killed and another one injured in a road accident in South Keraniganj, on the outskirts of the capital, in the small hours of Saturday.The deceased are Falan Mia, 25, Afzal Hossain, 28 and the auto-rickshaw driver Chan Mia, 32.The accident took place when a goods-laden truck hit the Postagola-bound CNG-run auto-rickshaw around 1:00am, leaving Falan and Chan dead on the spot and two others injured, South Keraniganj police station sub-inspector M Kawsar told Prothom Alo in the morning.Injured Afzal succumbed to his injuries at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital, he said.Another injured was taken to Mitford Hospital in Dhaka.Kawsar said police seized the truck but the driver and helper managed to flee the scene.No suit was filed in this connection, the SI said.
To embed this piece of audio in your site, please use this code: Listen 00:00 /01:16 X Thousands of Texas high school seniors are officially moving onto college this month. But this year’s freshmen might struggle more than last year’s freshmen class.That prediction comes from the latest test scores from the most popular college entrance exam, the ACT.In Texas, 26 percent of graduating seniors met the so-called “benchmark score” across all four subjects: English, math, reading and science. That means they have a good chance of getting a B or C in that subject in college.ACT officials blamed the drop in scores to a record number of students taking the exam.“This year’s ACT-tested class is more representative of the student population than any we’ve ever had,” said ACT Chief Executive Officer Marten Roorda in a statement.“We have likely added many more underrepresented students who may not have been preparing to go to college. In a situation such as this, it’s not at all surprising that overall achievement levels went down. Research clearly shows that scores initially decrease when states adopt the ACT for all students, but access and opportunities increase.”Bob Schaeffer with the advocacy group FairTest said that it’s more evidence that there’s too much focus on testing.“Kids who are not even on the college track are taking the test as well. And that both adds to the number of test-takers and lowers the average score,” Schaeffer said.What’s more, the gap grew between students from low-income homes and those from more affluent families making $80,000 or more a year. Schaeffer said that reflects the difference in opportunity for those kids, not their ability.“Kids whose parents have the means buy them test prep, get them special summer programs, send them to the best schools, and all of those show up in test scores, furthering the advantages that those children already have — since before they were born,” he said.Schaeffer contends that high school grades and rankings better predict how students will do in college. His group tracks how many colleges don’t require admissions exams or have flexible policies on tests. More than 75 colleges have joined that tally in the last three years. Pexels Share