注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

史蒂夫·哈蒙独家中文博客

互联网风投与管理者,创业企业是谷歌Adsense概念创造者之一

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

我是美国风投创始人和管理合作伙伴,曾担任过Jupiter Media公司VP,Paul Kagan Associates机构分析师,我的创业企业Applied Semantics2003年被谷歌收购,是谷歌Adsense概念创造者之一。现着重投资互联网领域,对中国互联网和网络新媒体有深刻研究。我写的《零重力1.0》和《零重力2.0》成为彭博社最畅销书籍,比尔盖茨、杨致远也读过我写的商业报告。在中国,我给网易科技独家供稿。hapn.cool try it!

文章分类
网易考拉推荐

$10,000 Is Spent Every Second On Ads In The U.S.  

2011-03-10 14:08:06|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

$10,000 is spent every second in the United States to try and get your attention. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Heck, 8 of those hours you’re sleeping and if they could find a way to interrupt that they would. (Don’t be surprised to find ads on your pillow case soon).

Of that $10,000 spent every second how much actually generates a return on investment to the advertiser? 1/10th of 1%. A quick tally shows $10 bucks. Just 10. So, for every $10,000 spent trying to convince you to pay attention to an advertisement, only $10 worth actually makes your brain pause.

The rest makes your brain freeze (and not the good kind like a Slurpee). How about a big picture breakdown of the numbers:

Advertising Spent To Reach You
$                                                                               300,000,000,000year
$                                                                                      821,355,236day
$                                                                                         34,223,135hour
$                                                                                              570,386minute
$                                                                                                   9,506second
0.1%effective
$                                                                                      300,000,000effective spend
$                                                                               299,700,000,000wasted

I ran a little test to put this experiment in the real world. Both in print and online.  In print I used a large newspaper in Southern California and bought both a display ad (a graphic ad) in the paper and an online ad. The online ad was targeted to one city where the readers/users would recognize the business being advertised.

Results from the newspaper ad? 3 clicks out of at least 12,500 impressions served.

A similar text ad was placed in Google Ad words. In one week Google Ad Words delivered a whopping 16 impressions (and no clicks). Tells me two things 1) Google isn’t as widespread as it appears and 2) Google cannot deliver a hyper-local ad unit effectively.

Of course a lot of the click through and impressions depend on the ad itself. But this experiment is about the general adoption and reaction to an attractive ad.

The experiment confirms my theory that advertising is dead. Beyond dead, petrified.  And the sad part is that so-called “interactive” advertising is not really interactive at all. Just because a banner can be clicked doesn’t make it interactive. Just because the ad expands on mouseover doesn’t make it better.

And a new flavor of ad has appeared: re-targeting. This is where the advertiser places a cookie (a tracker) on your computer and tracks the sites and things you do. It then starts delivering ads based on your clickstream, all without you knowing it’s snooping you. In fact, these aren’t ads, they’re “snoops”.

Another bad idea from the advertising world.

Heaven forbid you stumble into YouTube now and see the overlay ads they show on videos. Yet another old-fashioned idea foisted on the user. How friendly is that? In the rush to monetize they’ve thrown user-friendliness out the door.

Ditto for Twitter. Promoted Tweets.  Just call it an ad. That’s what it is. “Here’s an ad designed to look like a tweet”.  Perhaps a better approach would be to actually offer users something valuable rather than just another ad. There are many other ways to monetize this vs. ads as tweets.

And last week Facebook got into the movie streaming business via a deal with Warner Bros. It’s actually one of the better ways to monetize Facebook vs. showing banner ads or a friend’s photo alongside a jar of Skippy peanut butter.

At its heart Google tries to match search terms with an ad. However, Google Ad Words allows advertisers to include keywords in their ads, even if they don’t have the item. This happened to me on several experimental searches where the sponsored ads included the product name. But, when clicked, the ad took me to the home page of the site. Even after re-typing the product on the site, they didn’t have the item.

So, you see, it doesn’t work. Advertisers are spamming and gaming the system at Google. And Google gives them the tools to do that by allowing search keywords to be included dynamically in the ads. Google could/should crosscheck the terms with landing pages at the sites but they don’t. Again, poor user experience.

The world of spam and carpet-bombing advertisement (which is 100% of it now) is dying. How fast it dies depends on the tolerance level of everyone to endure being spat on with messages nobody wants to hear.

We will have a world where there isn’t any advertising. What will replace it will be something far more effective and relevant to everyone personally.  People are ready for it. Technology is able to do it. It’s the advertisers that aren’t willing, they’re caught in the past.

If it took you 3 minutes or so to read this then another $1.7 million was spent trying to get your attention by the advertisers. What could you have done with that money?

  评论这张
 
阅读(5098)| 评论(9)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017