5 ms·

One wonders why the major news/media corporations haven't simply cartelized their ad space. If NYTimes, News Corp, Knight-Ridder, and Conde Nast got together a

One wonders why the major news/media corporations haven't simply cartelized their ad space. If NYTimes, News Corp, Knight-Ridder, and Conde Nast got together and decided the ad space in their properties would cost $X, where X is enough to sustain good journalism, people would probably pay X in order to advertise in those websites, because they have large prestigious markets.

michael_dorfman 17y ago
I'm not so sure of that. The problem with web-based advertising is that it is so damned measurable-- it's trivial to see if your ad is working or not (where "working" is defined as leading to a conversion appropriate to the task at hand.) In the old days, a company might pay $X to run a print ad, and suspect that it was helping business, and then run it again, etc. Now, it's trivial to know for sure, one way or the other. Which means that ad prices get tied to actual effectiveness, not to some amorphous notion of "prestige". In other words: a lot of print advertising was horribly overpriced. I don't think a cartel is going to be able to put that toothpaste back into the tube....
morisy 17y ago
Only slightly related, but a number of media outlets are currently talking about cartelizing their web subscriptions. I think that Michael_Dorman's largely correct on this issue, however: If they do find they can even legally follow on your suggestions, there is still the next question of whether it's the most cost-effective buy. For some branding purposes (the prestige buy you mention), it might be. But while that is a substantial spend, it's not the majority spend and at the end of the day, cartel or not, the revenues simply won't reach where they need to be to support their businesses.
anamax 17y ago
> If NYTimes, News Corp, Knight-Ridder, and Conde Nast got together and decided the ad space in their properties would cost $X Those folks have been selling ads for some time. What evidence do you have that they're doing it (significantly) wrong? Note that all of those publications are losing off-line subscribers like crazy and the on-line numbers aren't growing as fast. Are there anti-trust implications in your proposal?
- Perceval 17y ago
  As far as I can tell, those corporations have been using third party ad networks to serve ads on their web properties. I think that limits the amount of control the NYTimes or WSJ might have over the pricing of ads, since the same ad might be run on a high-status newspaper like Washington Post and also on middling web-only pages alike. I'm sure there are anti-trust implications if done improperly. But "The Deck" advertising network works on the same principle: limit ads to a certain network of blogs with a certain type of content, charging a different rate, having control over the type of ads, and delivering a certain known target market to advertisers. My idea for the big news/media corps is essentially the same. http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/

michael_dorfman 17y ago

I'm not so sure of that. The problem with web-based advertising is that it is so damned measurable-- it's trivial to see if your ad is working or not (where "working" is defined as leading to a conversion appropriate to the task at hand.) In the old days, a company might pay $X to run a print ad, and suspect that it was helping business, and then run it again, etc. Now, it's trivial to know for sure, one way or the other. Which means that ad prices get tied to actual effectiveness, not to some amorphous notion of "prestige". In other words: a lot of print advertising was horribly overpriced. I don't think a cartel is going to be able to put that toothpaste back into the tube....

morisy 17y ago

Only slightly related, but a number of media outlets are currently talking about cartelizing their web subscriptions. I think that Michael_Dorman's largely correct on this issue, however: If they do find they can even legally follow on your suggestions, there is still the next question of whether it's the most cost-effective buy. For some branding purposes (the prestige buy you mention), it might be. But while that is a substantial spend, it's not the majority spend and at the end of the day, cartel or not, the revenues simply won't reach where they need to be to support their businesses.

anamax 17y ago

> If NYTimes, News Corp, Knight-Ridder, and Conde Nast got together and decided the ad space in their properties would cost $X Those folks have been selling ads for some time. What evidence do you have that they're doing it (significantly) wrong? Note that all of those publications are losing off-line subscribers like crazy and the on-line numbers aren't growing as fast. Are there anti-trust implications in your proposal?

Perceval 17y ago
As far as I can tell, those corporations have been using third party ad networks to serve ads on their web properties. I think that limits the amount of control the NYTimes or WSJ might have over the pricing of ads, since the same ad might be run on a high-status newspaper like Washington Post and also on middling web-only pages alike. I'm sure there are anti-trust implications if done improperly. But "The Deck" advertising network works on the same principle: limit ads to a certain network of blogs with a certain type of content, charging a different rate, having control over the type of ads, and delivering a certain known target market to advertisers. My idea for the big news/media corps is essentially the same. http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/