CMS Magazine rating of contextual advertising agencies published

    Hello, Habr! Usually we do not write about the rating products of our colleagues, but here we decided to make an exception. CMS Magazine, an analytical portal, has just published a new rating for contextual advertising agencies .

    There are two reasons why we decided to write about this in our blog on the hub The first - despite the huge number of various ratings on the digital market (the full list can be found on our Ruward ), the contextual advertising segment has been ignored for a long time - it clearly lacked an sensible rating product. The second - a rather original methodology was chosen to build the chart - the presence of certificates for the companies and their employees in the two most popular systems: Direct and Google Adwords.

    So, the top ten agencies of the chart:

    2. IConText
    3. ArrowMedia
    4. iMedia
    5. World of Advertising
    6. Adlabs
    7. MediaGuru
    8. Webcom media
    9. Demis group
    10. NIKA

    A full list of agencies can be found on the official website . And we will try to give some of our own comments on the results:

    Advantages of the method:

    • The presence of certificates at the company itself and a large number of certified employees have an obvious correlation with the level of quality of service to the customer. Of course, a specialist with a certificate is not necessarily better than a specialist without it - but on average this statement is true. Linking to quality, and not to PR-activities or turnovers gives great practical value for the end customer.

    • The methodology showed a quite representative result - the majority of large and significant players were ranked in high places. Thus, the “semantic” post-factum check suggests that such an approach is quite acceptable.

    The disadvantages of the method:

    • If the comparison and reference to quality at the level (there are many certificates - there are no certificates at all) are quite obvious, then a finer arrangement of places looks less logical.

      If the purpose of the rating is to show the quality of services, then a company of 10 people with 10 certificates should be higher than a company of 100 people with 15 certificates. Therefore, it would be interesting to analyze the proportion of certificates by the number of companies. Well, in general, the thesis that 26 certificates are better than 25 on large numbers smoothly stops working.

      If the goal of the rating is to show the size and scale of the business, then the “certification” metric is, in principle, not very relevant.

    • The methodology is quite susceptible to the risk of cheating in the future. It’s no secret that agencies are able to make remarkable efforts to put themselves in a good place in the popular ranking. Setting the goal of getting as many certificates per capita as possible in a year is not so difficult (and even useful in some places).

    As often happens with ratings - there are pros and cons - and there is always a reason for a holivor. But a rather important point is the fact of the appearance of such a product in the contextual advertising segment. In any case, this increases the transparency of the market, initiates discussions about “how to”, and ultimately brings significant benefits.

    Also popular now: