4 ms·
That doesn't invalidate my metaphor. If an advertiser is willing to pay you $x then you can be guaranteed they're earning $x * 2 -- or more. If you had the pro
by ahoyhere 16y ago
That doesn't invalidate my metaphor.
If an advertiser is willing to pay you $x then you can be guaranteed they're earning $x * 2 -- or more. If you had the product instead, and were the advertiser, you could be the one making a lot more money.
Advertising expenditure is always a sliver of total expected revenue, except in two rare cases: when a company bets the farm on an ad campaign, and when the advertiser is a startup running on VC.
Therefore, the amount of money the ad generates will almost always be more than it costs. That is indisputable.
Ergo, making products is a better way to capture more money.
- axod 16y agoYou can realistically make a handful of products. You can advertise millions. Would you rather sell 1 product, or advertise a million different products? Your logic seems to miss that crucial point. Look at it this way. Paid subscription = Manufacturing. Advertising income = Retailing. Would you say there's also no money in retailing? (Which is really just a form of advertising supported). My argument is that there's plenty of money in both if you know what you're doing. Which you chose is likely a matter of personal preference, and how much risk you like taking.