• by January 5, 2001

Here's an eye-opener: content sites are an important venue for advertising, but only the best, the fittest, will survive.

According to a recent Forrester Research study, sites currently scrambling to survive on ad revenue will begin to be profitable in about two years, once online ad spending hits $13 billion, as Forrester says it will at that point.

Based on the above, the report's biggest pieces of advice to advertisers is that they should be taking advantage of today's low prices by opting for long-term ad deals whenever possible.

Perhaps it is my inherent forecast/prediction-related cynicism, but am I the only one who sees the problem with the above? If only the best will survive (and we have no idea as of yet which ones they will turn out to be), what's the point of long-term ad deals?

It seems that Forrester is assuming that the marketplace will be the same in five years as it is now. But if the past year has taught us anything, it's that nothing in this business stays even remotely constant and that very fact makes any speculation (or advice) on the future useless.

And if there's any money attached (even with possible discounts figured in), it could be downright dangerous.

I'm afraid I'd have to side with the cautious minority on this one and disagree with Forrester. The environment is simply too volatile for any long-term deals, so please proceed with caution.