So here's a theory. An old adage used to be "I know half my advertising dollars are wasted, but I don't know which half!" Now that you can get analytics on ad

So here's a theory. An old adage used to be "I know half my advertising dollars are wasted, but I don't know which half!" Now that you can get analytics on ad views and interactions, we do know that the interaction rates on ads in publications are terrible. Therefore, they command lower rates. Is this a case where technology is "cleaning up" an ineffective use of marketing dollars? Another change for advertisers is that they can get superior targeting online. Why broadcast to everyone when you can target your niche directly? On a side note, I hate marketing. I want to either be the customer or the product, but never both. That said, I might pay extra for newspapers or media with no ads, only reporting. I want investigative journalists essentially on my payroll. Which is basically public broadcasting (NPR or PBS in the US), but I wouldn't be opposed to a completely private alternative. The issue there is that I'd want to pay an established name, an upstart would have to convince me that they'll provide excellent work.