3 ms·
I'm not sure why this "CPM" figure is relevant. That might be interesting to someone working in advertising, I don't care whether the advertisers think they got
by esotericn 8y ago
I'm not sure why this "CPM" figure is relevant. That might be interesting to someone working in advertising, I don't care whether the advertisers think they got a good deal or not.
(As an aside it's trivially explainable by the fact that on the Tube you are basically forced to look at it, likely for 10-20 minutes. You either stare at the person opposite, or you look up, where oh, there's a convenient hair loss advert).
What matters is whether the person being forced to look at the shit gets a good deal or not.
They don't. I get _nothing_ from an advert on the street, and from an advert on the tube I get a discount of pence, which could _easily_ be made up for in improved mental health outcomes.
You've even quoted it.
> That means that for every 1000 users, they're earning 78 GBP in ads revenue.
So 7.8p per person. It would disrupt my day less to pick that up off the street. That's not a joke, it's serious.
You think it's a lot, because you're mentally multiplying (it's already in this bloody euphemistic "CPM" term) by loads of people and imagining how much you can make from mass abuse.
- gerbilly 8y ago> What matters is whether the person being forced to look at the shit gets a good deal or not. Funny, and true. While reading the parent post, I found myself imagining Mr. Burns from the Simpsons rubbing his hands together as he considered what an awesome 'CPM' he was getting. Like you, I also think some concepts are bullshit and totally deserving of willful ignorance. I don't know what CPM is either, aside from an OS I used 30 years ago, but if it makes advertising seem reasonable or desirable, I'm sure I don't want to know.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoThe way I see it: in an industry whose main goal is to trick people into buying things they don't need, why should anyone expect it won't use its own methods on itself?