Two months ago, Publicis Chief Growth Officer Rishad Tobaccowala rocked the ad industry when he made a couple of seemingly innocuous statements during an interview at an industry conference.
They included what some have seen as an aggressive projection: The supply of consumer attention to advertising will decline by as …
Reminder: You are seeing this premium content because you are a subscriber to MediaPost's Research Intelligencer and/or a member of the Center for Marketing & Media Research. This content cannot be viewed by non-subscribers/non-members.
Shouldn't the calculation be based on the amount of time people actually spend viewing the ads?
I'll offer some other examples of how an artificially inflated or deflated denominator can skew our pereption of the value of an economic transaction:
* Restaurants charge people an outrageous $1 per bite!
* Homes are priced at $100,000 per square foot, because we're rarely home and only occupy two to six square feet most of the time we're at home.
* American consumers used to value a postage stamp at $145 an hour, because it was only licked for .5 second, but perversely don't value them at all now, since they never lick them.
* Most Americans don't enjoy or appreciate sex because most don't pay for it.
Focusing on how much time people spend looking at ads, I'm guessing the industry values people's time at $30-$100 an hour, since most people only focus on the ads for 30-120 seconds and hour... if that.
It certainly seems like it should be. Reading the first part took me perhaps two minutes.
That was worth quite a lot and while I wonder if your comparison of 'wage' and 'hourly value' (aren't we all worth a lot more than we are being paid?) isn't stretching the apples and apples comparison rather thin. like any fellow magician, I can't wait to see how you get the Easter bunny into the hat.