(This Technorati query shows everyone who’s pointed to the post) Hopefully those from the Media 2.0 group will share what their media diet is before we work on interesting projects telling the world of the next generations of media to come.
Peter Kim notices that for those that participated in the informal survey that we’re inversely related to where advertising is spent”
“What’s notable is the fact that these early adopters are engaged with media channels in inverse relationship to the amount of advertising money being spent therein. In other words, they’re spending the most time where the least amount of advertising dollars are focused….
* TV: $47 billion
* Magazines: $21 billion
* Newspapers: $20 billion
* Radio: $8 billion
* Internet: $7 billion
Yup, Peter, you are so right, in fact, I may have subconsciously or consciously chose media where there is little noticeable advertising (although I see non-stop marketing and storytelling). One other factoid Peter, in the workplace in North America, Internet is THE primary medium. At home, TV is one, closely followed by the Internet. I wouldn’t place too much money on TV however, Internet Uncle Steve Gillmor says TV is Dead. I predict they are both engaged and will bear a new child, that resembles both mom and dad.
Why is there less Ad dollar burn for the mediums I consume? This could mean that there’s a tremendous opportunity for advertisers to spend money on the internet, OR, it could mean that internet advertising is very efficient and lower costs may yield higher success.