Modern Media Consumption Diet is Lean of Fatty Advertising
Yesterday, I shared my Media Consumption Diet with everyone, (and I encourage you too as well) and a few others have joined in to share such as Martin McKeay, Chris Saad, Brian Keith and Zac
(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.
7 Comments so far
Leave a reply
[…] Update: Quick Analysis by Peter Kim shows that our diets are void of advertising dollars, does that mean that web advertising is efficient, or that I’m avoiding it? […]
My diet is also lean in that the celebrities I care about tend to be people I have (or could have) some interaction with. I care about what Godin thinks not only because his blog is interesting, but because he answers (albeit in 4 words) my emails.
And, you can’t buy him.
There is less “ad burn” on the web right now becase there is no way to reach 20 million people in one shot. Of course we are in for “more shifting” of advertising dollars. It seems pretty clear that the money will move from traditional television to more advanced forms of advertising over the web — once reliable ways are in place to reach mass audiences (instead of small, fractured ones, a few thousand at a time.) I’m not sure if he knows of such a plan (pending technology in software, or whatever) but Shelly Palmer over on Medioa 3.0 points out that the shift is inevitable. It’s just a matter of when.
(And how.)
- Matt
[…] A few days ago, I gave my media consumption diet. It’s interesting that a lot of my stuff is on Demand, and has few ads. Loren’s responded with much love on his video: […]
Cost of ads play a role in that, too.
Look at ad rates for almost any news organization, and you’ll see that online ads are much cheaper than comparable print ads.
In many markets, advertisers still don’t see the value in the internet, even though they could reach audiences the same size or larger than the print product with a more lucrative demographic.
I really think all the crazy acronyms and jargon(CPM, CPC, Pageview, Unique view, etc.) hurt internet advertising.
When advertisers print an ad or run a TV spot, they see it when it’s supposed to be there. In the case of CPM, they don’t necessarily see it, and they assume others don’t either.
It would be interesting to see numbers on the volume of ads in each medium.
[…] A lot of people have spoken lately about their media consumption. While this type of list is of key importance to many, I would like to speak more about the other direction – my media production. More specifically, what I have created so far, and the goals I am setting for 2007. […]