• by October 19, 2000

Following yesterday's column about the growing pains of the online advertising industry, a reader charged me with over-hyping the Internet as a whole. He wrote, "If those big advertisers would take a deep look at how their banners are "published" and the unevenness of the flow of impressions, they would have to wonder at what they got themselves into. But, no one on the agency side wants to tell them this is not yet a medium."

I thought we were all past the point of having to prove our online advertising existence, so allow me a rebuttal.

First off, if the agency side didn't consider the Internet an ad medium, I doubt they'd spend upwards of $4.6 billion on online ads last year and more than $2 billion in the second quarter of this year alone.

Second, the Internet reaches more than half of American households of all demographics and is, by far, the most measurable medium advertisers have ever dealt with in the past - no one could argue that. Yes, there is a boatload of discrepancies we have to deal with every day, but the same goes for broadcast ratings, and no one would argue TV is not an ad medium.

Third, if the medium weren't delivering, no one would bother with it. Campaigns wouldn't get renewed, there would be no debates about the definition of impression, rich media would still be a buzzword and Volvo, just to use the most recent example, wouldn't be launching their new car in an online- only ad campaign.

There are more facts and figures that support the Internet as a valuable and valid advertising medium and it would take much more than a minute to go through them all, so allow me to end with a quote Michael Kubin, co-CEO of LWA, recently gave MediaLifeMagazine: "Anyone who ignores a medium that reaches more than half of American households, that can target audiences very well, that is exceptionally measurable, and that can take a marketer all the way from message to sale is a moron."