4 ms·
>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content. Well in the eyes of the "advertiser" - t
by libertine 6y ago
>The author assumes that "the media" are some homogenous lump that all thinks the same and pumps out the same content.
Well in the eyes of the "advertiser" - the money - they are indeed a homogeneous lump that sell their advertising inventory to some DSP... while Facebook/Google have extremely valuable inventory due to the data granularity.
And you might say, "oh this has nothing to do with advertising!". Let me tell you that I've witnessed the inner workings of large old media protecting some advertisers, as well as pilling up to attack tech giants.
Media and Silicon Valley are at war since the share of media budgets accelerated towards tech giants, departing from "old" media. The media started to feel the urge to compete with user generated content when faced with this reality that reflected as lower CPMs for their inventory, and started to pump content (news/opinions/etc) - the "truth" became irrelevant as long as they are the first, or have the snappier header to grab clicks.
The media is as much to blame for the status quo as any other player.
- nkozyra 6y ago> Let me tell you that I've witnessed the inner workings of large old media protecting some advertisers I have too, but I'll say it's very rare and built-in mechanisms of good journalistic institutions tend to prevent it.
- libertine 6y agoYes, maybe it was a mistake of mine mentioning it so lightly - you're absolutely right! Specially on protecting advertisers, it's very rare (sometimes even if advertiser pulls a tantrum and strips off budget). But on the subject of attacking tech giants, if find that to be recurrent - and in the "old media" defense most of it is well deserved. Still, they pile up with some enjoyment.