• by Lydia Loizides , Op-Ed Contributor, August 20, 2007

I honestly feel like a broken record (or scratched CD or corrupted file) these days... between telling my son not to poke his sister, and explaining to clients that YouTube views are not the equivalent of Nielsen ratings, I feel I have reached the tipping point.  Now comes this article in the Times today, "Ad Growth for AOL Called Vital to a Remake," and I feel like no one has been listening to the loud booming voice of history. 

What do I mean? Well, think about it, folks.  The gist of the article is that ad growth is on the rise, but the portal's command of that growth -- and audiences -- is on the decline. Uh-huh.  So where is the rocket science in not having seen that one coming? Doesn't this happen with every new competitive media - whether it is the talkies' effect on silent pictures, television's effect on radio, cable's effect on network audience size? The outcome is all the same. As competition enters the market, time, resources and overall value shift. In this case, what is happening online is what I loving call the "cablization of  the Web" -- obvious, isn't it?

So, rather than asking the predictable question that has a predictable outcome, let us ask the tougher question: When will quality finally outweigh quantity when it comes to measuring the efficacy of reach in advertising? I am not saying that frequency isn't important; it is.  What I am challenging is the notion that reach still needs to be broad.  Oh sure, media planners tell me all the time that they are embracing smaller, more verticalized channels to reach their target -- but on a percentage basis, tonnage still wins. 

So, as opposed to me beating this drum yet again, and forcing you to listen to me espouse the virtues of competition in the market and the valuation of not only CPM but audiences as a whole, why don't you "weigh" in, as it were.  After all, I am sure you have an opinion on the matter. Otherwise, you wouldn't be reading this.