4 ms·
> There is a fixed amount of 'revenue seats' > Google/fb/etc take a portion of that fixed revenue If you need citations for these, your burden of proof is a bi
by buttcoinslol 9y ago
> There is a fixed amount of 'revenue seats'
> Google/fb/etc take a portion of that fixed revenue
If you need citations for these, your burden of proof is a bit too extreme.
Unless advertisers have an infinite amount of money, there will be a finite amount of ad revenue. At some point, there's a floor to how much ad revenue you can capture while still having enough money to maintain a journalistic organization, creating a fixed number of 'revenue seats'.
A portion of that money will by default go to the largest players in the market, Google and Facebook.
- j-c-hewitt 9y agoThe real question is how much advertisers need online display. Most don't need much. Honestly, online display has more meaningful competition from print (yes), radio, and TV because it's more geared to branding. For direct response, generally speaking online ads are more cost effective. For the most part, you don't need to place direct response ads on publishers' websites. You can just put them on FB or Google search. I would say that it's a simple issue of aesthetics and performance. Banner ads look like total garbage. Video ads on Youtube videos tend to be less appealing than video ads on a big screen TV. Tiny thumbnail video ads on news websites are visual pollution at best and a total annoyance at worst.
- soared 9y agoMy point below that is that those large publishers increase the amount of revenue available. So they take a percent, but the entire pie would be smaller without them. With double digit growth, supply isn't fixed and its a common idea that supply (from an advertiser perspective) is effectively unlimited.