3 ms·
It isn't necessarily scary. The charts show "time spent" vs money spent. But what you really want to know is "money spent" vs "results taken". IE: Which channel
by spitfire 12y ago
It isn't necessarily scary. The charts show "time spent" vs money spent. But what you really want to know is "money spent" vs "results taken". IE: Which channels drive revenue.
on the flip side, you can measure these things on web/mobile platforms, it gets much more difficult with print ads.
FWIW I'm more likely to respond to an ad I see on the Economist or Monocle than one I see on my mobile phone.
At the moment just the fact that it's on my mobile phone tells me it has less value.
- cperciva 12y agoWhich channels drive revenue. You don't even need to go that far: Which channels have useful audiences? My guess is that the average Economist reader has far more disposable income than the average Candy Crush player.
- hkmurakami 12y agoExactly the reason why professional golfers have very lucrative endorsement contracts, and why the tour has sponsors and advertisers ranging from luxury goods to enterprise software vendors. (Phil Mickelson's endorsement income was reportedly $45MM in 2013, which is