3 ms·

My genuine question: how many people watched the tv ad and didnt ignore it? If I wanted 5$ CPMs, at 60k per ad, I'd expect 12,000,000 people to see it -- not u

My genuine question: how many people watched the tv ad and didnt ignore it? If I wanted 5$ CPMs, at 60k per ad, I'd expect 12,000,000 people to see it -- not unreasonable by prime time TV standards From there, I'd argue that for brand advertising TV is more powerful because TV watchers will prefer to continue doing the same thing (stare at TV) vs ignoring the commercial or pressing mute. Arguably the big difference is the entry requirements, you can't do anything on TV for less than 4 figures, whereas you can get started on twitter for single digit ad spends

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its a good question on impact, but my point was to the pricing authority that Television has, which it got through a historical and perhaps no longer relevant understanding. My point is if Twitter is competing with web search which is both cheaper and more effective than TV. When people follow Ashton or Miley they care what they say, not some random ad that comes through from them following them. Anyway, the feeling of "its really big" but not a lot of specificity about the bigness was, for me, one of the hallmarks of the dot com bubble. I remember Eric Schmidt (which I was at Sun) remarking that if anything he felt the Internet was under hyped. And while he was ultimately correct, the people who were hyping were actually quite mistaken about "how" it was under hyped. (That is so to illustrate my comment about a 'sense' of bigness without specificity). As I watch Twitter's evolution I am on the look out for either new value they create or captured value they take from other sources. One candidate for losing value is 'nightly news' which already took a huge hit to 24hr news channels. It may not survive another :-). But the 21st century newscast is a very different thing. Exciting times.

3 ms·

My genuine question: how many people watched the tv ad and didnt ignore it? If I wanted 5$ CPMs, at 60k per ad, I'd expect 12,000,000 people to see it -- not u

by hayksaakian 13y ago

ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its a good question on impact, but my point was to the pricing authority that Television has, which it got through a historical and perhaps no longer relevant understanding. My point is if Twitter is competing with web search which is both cheaper and more effective than TV. When people follow Ashton or Miley they care what they say, not some random ad that comes through from them following them. Anyway, the feeling of "its really big" but not a lot of specificity about the bigness was, for me, one of the hallmarks of the dot com bubble. I remember Eric Schmidt (which I was at Sun) remarking that if anything he felt the Internet was under hyped. And while he was ultimately correct, the people who were hyping were actually quite mistaken about "how" it was under hyped. (That is so to illustrate my comment about a 'sense' of bigness without specificity). As I watch Twitter's evolution I am on the look out for either new value they create or captured value they take from other sources. One candidate for losing value is 'nightly news' which already took a huge hit to 24hr news channels. It may not survive another :-). But the 21st century newscast is a very different thing. Exciting times.