4 ms·

And if cars are overvalued, then Ford needs a new business model. Kind of a tautology there.

coldtea 10y ago
The insight the parent offered though is pointing out the tautology in the former case. Because while everyone knows Ford == cars, lots of people see SV/Google and miss that most of it is in the selling ads business and much less in selling tech.
lvs 10y ago
There is no tautology and no conflict. Both would be true statements of their conditional claims were true. The trouble is that internet advertising is far more likely to be overvalued than cars are. I think everyone in the thread knows this and is just being a bit difficult for some rhetorical purpose.
- 03pxkexce5 10y ago
  Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it was my impression that increases in internet advertising revenue were mainly based on increased volume, not higher prices. I don't see any reason volume should drop when more and more consumers are using the internet and spending more time on it.
  - lvs 10y ago
    Consumers don't buy advertising. Companies do. Consumers don't want advertising at all, and they don't really understand that all their tech products/services are subsidized by ad revenue. Would they pay recurring fees for those products/services without an ad subsidy? Some would, but most won't. So if and when companies (that actually produce something) decide that their investment is better spent outside of search and social media, and if consumers don't then fund those products directly, it will be like an earthquake in SF. This is exactly what happened to newspapers, by the way.
    - 03pxkexce5 10y ago
      Internet advertising spending replaced newspaper advertising. What is going to replace internet advertising? VR? Those ads will probably still be sold by FB and Google. To me, Google and FB's PE ratios are sensible, taking into account current profits, continuing growth in the short and medium term, and uncertainty in the long run.

The insight the parent offered though is pointing out the tautology in the former case. Because while everyone knows Ford == cars, lots of people see SV/Google and miss that most of it is in the selling ads business and much less in selling tech.

lvs 10y ago

There is no tautology and no conflict. Both would be true statements of their conditional claims were true. The trouble is that internet advertising is far more likely to be overvalued than cars are. I think everyone in the thread knows this and is just being a bit difficult for some rhetorical purpose.

03pxkexce5 10y ago
Perhaps I am wrong about this, but it was my impression that increases in internet advertising revenue were mainly based on increased volume, not higher prices. I don't see any reason volume should drop when more and more consumers are using the internet and spending more time on it.
- lvs 10y ago
  Consumers don't buy advertising. Companies do. Consumers don't want advertising at all, and they don't really understand that all their tech products/services are subsidized by ad revenue. Would they pay recurring fees for those products/services without an ad subsidy? Some would, but most won't. So if and when companies (that actually produce something) decide that their investment is better spent outside of search and social media, and if consumers don't then fund those products directly, it will be like an earthquake in SF. This is exactly what happened to newspapers, by the way.
  - 03pxkexce5 10y ago
    Internet advertising spending replaced newspaper advertising. What is going to replace internet advertising? VR? Those ads will probably still be sold by FB and Google. To me, Google and FB's PE ratios are sensible, taking into account current profits, continuing growth in the short and medium term, and uncertainty in the long run.