Four pages of sweet sweet charts!
via a-mandolin
1997 was the middle of my 3 years living in London so esp interesting to compare.
∞
June 16, 2010
June 9, 2010
I thought it was a bit early in the season but found these at WF today. Heirloom tomatoes are probably my single favorite food.
∞June 8, 2010
June 7, 2010
Imported from Last.fm Tumblr by JoeLaz
∞June 4, 2010
"
FORGET YOUR BRAND. You don’t own it because it is literally nothing. You can spend all sorts of time and money trying to manufacture public opinion, but ultimately, that’s up to the public, now isn’t it?
You know the best way to get the public to respect your brand? Have a respectable brand. Offer a great, innovative product and make responsible, ethical business decisions.
"Leroy Stick – the man behind @BPGlobalPR (via msg) (via jenbee)
June 3, 2010
June 2, 2010
An “oversupply” of online ads?
A quote in paidContent this morning, from Myspace UK GM Christopher Moser:
The key question remains, how do you monetise traffic these days? This is not (just) a MySpace problem, it is a generic question around content creators. We have unlimited supply of advertising space. There’s millions and millions and millions and millions of web pages, and they all sell ads. Making a business model on the internet is not easy.
I often hear this notion, direct or implied, that the reason why it’s difficult to realize a good fill rate and/or CPM (or “effective CPM” = fill rate x CPM) is because there’s too much “supply” of ad inventory. I don’t buy it, at least over time.
To my mind, the scarce quantity to consider is people’s time, or attention, and this only increases on a per capita basis — which seems the right metric to consider, since more people also means more consumer budgets that can be targeted by ads — if people spend a greater % of their day consuming ad-based media vs consuming non-ad-based media, sleeping, eating, exercising, working and so forth.
I’m not sure if this is true (perhaps someone reading this can confirm) but, if it is, then the *average* CPM might reasonably decline due to diminishing returns from advertising fatigue, but per capita ad spending should not, if one assumes the “effectiveness” of ads (however measured) is no worse, and the disposable incomes being targeted by those ads are no lower, online vs offline. In fact, online ads should be more (not less) effective, given a greater opportunity for relevancy and interactivity; and online audiences generally have higher (not lower) disposable incomes.
Likewise, if people are consuming more content online but for shorter periods of time (aka “snacking”), then, again, the average CPM *might* reasonably decline, corresponding to the fewer seconds (say) spent with an advertisement, but per capita ad spending logically should not, all else equal. It’s a person’s attention that’s being purchased by an advertiser, and that value should decline, on average, only if the advertising he consumes becomes less effective or his disposable income declines; but a decline for either reason should adversely impact less effective forms of advertising (i.e. offline ads) to a greater degree.
Ignoring macroeconomic factors, I suspect the real culprits behind lower effective CPMs on the internet to date are marketers’ and agencies’ discounting the value of online branding relative to direct response ads (aka Google AdSense), and their greater familiarity and comfort with older forms of media, resulting in a disproportionately low share for online advertising vis-a-vis the internet medium’s share of consumer attention.
But this will change, as demonstrated in this chart by Hal Varian of Berkeley and now Google and discussed by Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures:
