5 ms·

"One analyst told The New York Times last year that 85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google—leaving a paltry 15 pe

by cerved 10y ago

"One analyst told The New York Times last year that 85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google—leaving a paltry 15 percent for news organizations to fight over." I stopped reading here since the author obviously doesn't know what he/she is talking about and didn't bother looking it up.

RileyKyeden 10y ago
The article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-battle-falteringad-revenue-and-traffic.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-b... > Advertisers adjusted spending accordingly. In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising will go to Google or Facebook, said Brian Nowak, a Morgan Stanley analyst. I don't know if it's accurate, but New York Times citing an analyst at a major financial services firm seems more credible than user "cerved" on Hacker News. Do you have better information?
- cerved 10y ago
  Okay so look at the two quotes "85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google" and "85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising" One proclaims that two companies take 85% of all online ad revenue, the other 85% of the growth in one quarter. So the first problem is the reference to the source is incorrect. The other is the assumption that only news orgs and Google and Facebook are the ones taking a part of the pie. Disregarding the other hundreds of companies that are a part of the online advertising ecosystem as well as other types of publishers. I would assert that the Atlantic misquoting a quote from the New York Times, which is a quote from a note a Morgan Stanley analyst wrote to clients the 7th of April 2016 is in and of itself not credible. I don't know the real figures but one could calculate this by estimating global ad spend in 2016, take Google and Facebooks ad revenue minus the cost of revenue, ie money spend on buying ads from publishers (ie. news organisations etc), and compare that to other actors. Bottom line, I refer to my previous point that the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Closer to 64%. But yes, two thirds of online ads to two entities, neither journalistic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/google-and-facebook-lead-digital-ad-industry-to-revenue-record https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/google-an...
- B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
  Used to be that advertisers didn't know which 50% of their budget they were wasting. That money paid for interesting writing, some of it even investigative reporting. Now advertisers can track the last red cent. Thank you, W3C. Well done, even if that wasn't the intention. (Beware answered prayers, etc., etc.)
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Turns out it's slightly more complicated with that: it's possible to track direct interactions with online content and advertising, but it's not entirely clear that that's all that useful, and it may well be harmful. The Register had some recent bits on this ("what part of advertising is wasted? All of it" is my recollection of the headline), and I've been kicking around this topic for a while.

by cerved 10y ago

RileyKyeden 10y ago

The article in question: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-battle-falteringad-revenue-and-traffic.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/business/media-websites-b... > Advertisers adjusted spending accordingly. In the first quarter of 2016, 85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising will go to Google or Facebook, said Brian Nowak, a Morgan Stanley analyst. I don't know if it's accurate, but New York Times citing an analyst at a major financial services firm seems more credible than user "cerved" on Hacker News. Do you have better information?

cerved 10y ago
Okay so look at the two quotes "85 percent of all online advertising revenue is funneled to either Facebook or Google" and "85 cents of every new dollar spent in online advertising" One proclaims that two companies take 85% of all online ad revenue, the other 85% of the growth in one quarter. So the first problem is the reference to the source is incorrect. The other is the assumption that only news orgs and Google and Facebook are the ones taking a part of the pie. Disregarding the other hundreds of companies that are a part of the online advertising ecosystem as well as other types of publishers. I would assert that the Atlantic misquoting a quote from the New York Times, which is a quote from a note a Morgan Stanley analyst wrote to clients the 7th of April 2016 is in and of itself not credible. I don't know the real figures but one could calculate this by estimating global ad spend in 2016, take Google and Facebooks ad revenue minus the cost of revenue, ie money spend on buying ads from publishers (ie. news organisations etc), and compare that to other actors. Bottom line, I refer to my previous point that the author doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Closer to 64%. But yes, two thirds of online ads to two entities, neither journalistic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/google-and-facebook-lead-digital-ad-industry-to-revenue-record https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-22/google-an...

B1FF_PSUVM 10y ago
Used to be that advertisers didn't know which 50% of their budget they were wasting. That money paid for interesting writing, some of it even investigative reporting. Now advertisers can track the last red cent. Thank you, W3C. Well done, even if that wasn't the intention. (Beware answered prayers, etc., etc.)
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Turns out it's slightly more complicated with that: it's possible to track direct interactions with online content and advertising, but it's not entirely clear that that's all that useful, and it may well be harmful. The Register had some recent bits on this ("what part of advertising is wasted? All of it" is my recollection of the headline), and I've been kicking around this topic for a while.