3 ms·
>Publishers were only able to produce high-quality content because, with no conversion metrics, advertisers were willing to overpay for placement. This implies
by nemothekid 5y ago
>Publishers were only able to produce high-quality content because, with no conversion metrics, advertisers were willing to overpay for placement.
This implies that big budget advertisers (the CPGs, like Coke and P&G), are buying Google/FB because they have better conversion metrics. That isn't true today; only SMBs and gaming companies care about conversion metrics. There are interns in LA/NY probably collectively spending millions on FB for P&G and only reporting the number of likes back to their bosses. Google and FB has never meaningfully delivered on conversions past anything like app downloads.
Tech undermined publisher's revenue because the internet cratered distribution costs. Advertising revenues for big media crashed because the eyeballs moved away, not because it was any less efficient.
- dehrmann 5y ago> the CPGs, like Coke and P&G Did any of these heavily buy newspaper ads before 2000? Definitely TV, possibly magazine, but newspaper? I just don't remember seeing ads for Tide in newspapers.
- throwaway2037 5y agoI thought for a moment about your reply. Do you remember Saturday / Sunday coupon sections? These are essentially adverts. Those are 100% consumables -- like branded health, food, and cleaning products.
- dehrmann 5y agoThat's a fair point; I forgot about those. That said, the earlier comment was on conversion metrics. Unlike brand advertising, brands track conversion metrics on coupons closely. I stand by my point that tech just exposed a bad business model. Newspapers were only viable because they were the ~only game in town. Now what actually killed newspapers wasn't search, it was Craigslist killing the classifieds...at least according to a study Google paid for.