Forgot your password?
Ed, I think you are underselling this. And by a massive 17%.My back of the envelope calculation has it an ad every six days - not seven.
@ c w: a) Nobody "owns" the airwaves either. The government regulates broadcast spectrum, issues licenses, auctions bandwidth.b) The government creates new regulations when there is a reason to regulate new things that are for the public good (or vice versa).c) Americans now get as much -- maybe more, depending on the American -- news from Facebook as they do from regulated broadcasters.d) Facebook has failed to maintain standards (of any kind, much less broadcast-level ones) for distributing "news," especially news determined to be fake (even by Facebook itself).e) Facebook only released information about Russia operatives distributing disinformation via Facebook after a special prosecutor requested it, and to Congress this week after public pressure. Broadcasters would have shared that immediately.f) Want me to go on? The reason Facebook -- and yes, others -- need to be regulated is because they represent disproportionate influence in how people get news and other information, and they've demonstrated irresponsible behavior. If they did a decent job of self-regulating, I never would have written this column. It's interesting that in the days following this posting, Facebook has made two important disclosures: 1) That it has established new protocols weeding out hate targeting; 2) That it is finally sharing information on Russia's influence campaign with Congress.
Require that a simple opt-out be provided. If someone wants to pay me for my information that is my decision.
Guarantee no throtteling for educational and informational content. Guarantee minimum speeds as a percentage of available for personal communication. Let the market determine the rest.
The analogy is false. Facebook does not use a publicly owned medium "The Airwaves" to distribute its content. Everybody is exposed to untruths and manipulation every day, not only from Facebook. The fact that our society has no interest in educating its' members so that they are aware of the untruths and manipulation being perpetuated at all levels is the real problem.Regulation is just hiding the problem under the carpet. If people want the right to vote for their government they should also be able to exercise their right to learn the difference between truth, fact and manipulation. Whether people will exercise that right or not is irrelevant so long as they have no access to the knowledge and tools required.Most governments have decided that it is not in their interest to have an educated and discerning voting public. It is much easier to regulate (muzzle) the voices that tell any narrative you do not agree with. Certain segment of the populace do learn these things, but the also "learn" that not everybody can be trusted with this information.This discernment is probably the most important thing we should teach our children. Trust should always be offered but seldom given.
When we started SheBuysCars, a content site, 5 years ago, our business plan included zero advertising. That's becasue it's a losing game: it costs more to produce content than advertising will pay. And, we risk having ads that push our audience away, like your experiene with NBC Sports. We have to be creative, innovative and in tune with what our audience wants and what our client partners need. None of that can be programmed or achieved through an algorithm. And those journalists who produced that wonderful piece for USA Today? I'll bet they earn a fraction of what they earned 10 years ago. Journalism is becomming a victim of 20th centruy revenue models trying to function in a 21st centruy media environment. The tight loop of annoying Mobil ads is an example of desparation, not greed, at work.
Automated data manipulation has a down side.
I strongly agree. And, don't call me.
Ed: thanks as always for thoughtful comments. I would say I am not barking up one particular tree, but at least three:
Ed beat me to a lot of what I would have said. But I'll add (pun intended) the culprit is also a combination of greed and need to stay in the black by the companies that display these ads, be they print, linear, digital or what have you. Advertising, particularly TV advertising will continue. Documentaries like this as well as a plethora of additional TV entertainment and education will proliferate and be supported by ads, because not everyone can afford the cost nor the magnitude of ever increasing costly platforms just to view one interesting piece of content. It’s just that the “platform” I speak of hasn’t made itself known yet.
Maarten, the complaint you make is perfectly valid but the same kind of observations about not only examples of poor ad scheduling but also misleading commercials, too much clutter, bad TV programming, etc. have been made many times in the past---remember Newton Minow's "Great Wasteland " speech? Now we are hearing them again, not only about TV---the usual culprit----but digital media and, yes, there are too many examples of sloppy or ill-advised behavior. However, advertisers are mainly in the business of providing goods and services to the public, not entertaining or informing it, generally. So, I'm afaid you are barking up the wrong tree if you believe that countless thousands of advertisers representing all types of businesses and agendas will band together to make things better.What individual advertisers can do is try to avoid situations such as the one you described as well as sponsoring unsavory TV shows, having their ads appear on rascist or terrorist websites, etc. If enough take some sort of action, that may clean up some of the more annoying problems, but ad-free media is not the answer. Paying much more attention to the media function might help, over and above the bean counting level, and by CMOs, not just their media watchdogs----but, frankly, despite a great dal of jabbering about this I don't see it happening. Not yet, anyway.
If the ad industry moves to Fort Wayne, Indiana or Montgomery, Alabama a city with one of the lowest cost of living or another similar city like Fort Wayne, perhaps. NY City has one of highest cost of living in the country.
Ads certainly have their importance and may they continue forever. However, my personal business is not theirs. When I want more info, the sellers should provide it to gain and keep their customers. As advertising becomes more complicated and expensive, it has shoved the small local businesses out of directly reaching their customers. $100-200/month gave them a couple of ads in the local papers with enough reach to be seen and get a response. As larger companies become conglomerates and those conglomerates which influence government to push their voice (deforestation, polluters e.g.) onto customer decisions. There are no reliable safeguards and limitations. See fbeast (the worst is yet to come).
Good news for Canoe, indeed. But lest we get overly excited, the stats translate into about one commercial "impression" per week for an average American, compared to 1155 "linear TV"comercial "exposures" per week attained via other sources.
Perhaps subscribers who do not watch sports are tired of paying so much for them for the people who do, not to mention the increased choices for their viewing time. The balance of cost, profitability, tenacity, interest is out of balance.
You might want to check your digital spend number. 72 million?
Ed, I get your point. Back in the "olden days", when I got into the business as an Assistant Media Planner at a mid-sized, full service agency the "pay your dues" approach was effective. You did whatever it took to move ahead, recognizing the payoff somewhere down the road. Back then, even as an assistant, you had exposure to the full capabilities of an agency and if you were really good, exposure directly to clients. Additionally, the social/entertainment aspect of the business made it fun to go to work. I don't think that really exists any more, but perhaps it doesn't in any industry. That said, if all I'm going to do is sit at a computer and do spreadsheets all day long, I might as well do it for an industry that pays more reasonable starting salaries. I stayed at my first agency for 7 years, because I was always learning something new, doing interesting work and being fairly paid (after the inital starting salary). Sadly, I think we don't offer any of that to today's newbies. I think our starting salaries need to be more competitive if there is any hope of encouraging bright young people to join the business.
Traditionally the large ad agencies have paid low starting wages because they know that gaining entry to this dynamic if often frustrating business is the key to future wealth for an ambitious person. This has, to a large extent, been true as I and many others can testify. Ad agencies, for all of their issues are great learning places if one has the sense to exploit that aspect. And once you are in, the transition to higher levels in the agency as well as other opportunities---like media ad selling, network TV programming, setting up one's own shop, etc. etc.---await. If, on the other hand, the agencies see themselves as hiring and training their beginners so they will stay with the company most of their business lives---as is often the case with advertisers----then, by all means, they should pay more to start and treat their newbie hires like future investments. The problem is that ad agency newbies tend to jump ship in great numbers ----even if paid well---- as they seek more rapid advancement, so a large agency that goes this route---the pay well to start route-----may find itself in the position of a college or university that pays its students to attend, rather than the students paying by accepting modest salaries to get their careers started. So far, the agencies have chosen to pay less and accept high turnover rates and, frankly, I see some wisdom in this---even if it seems stupid to outsiders.
Paula, I agree that we'd all like to be marketed at less and positively informed more. I am hopeful that as marketing becomes more precise and transparent that we will see its postive societal benefits get better and better. While much marketing and advertising that we get today can be annoying, I am heartened that it largely pays for our free press and the crucial Fourth Estate counter balance to governement in the US. Without ads, the US might be like so many countries around the world where the press have been largely controlled by governments in power and the business and policcal interests of a few.
I know lots and lots of not-so-young talent that they could hire. Unfortunately, the advertising industry’s notorious cheapness and pervasive ageism combine to make for the perception of a talent crisis. This is a bed of it’s own making.
Perhaps the industry should start by re-evaluating the absurdly low starting salaries that we continue to pay.
Umm. So disclosing Russian-generated content is hard, but sharing it isn't? More here... http://pjlehrer.blogspot.com/2017/08/combating-fake-news-in-social-media.html
Looks to me as if CNN Digital was a tad overstaffed, Wayne. A "loss" of 5% for a relatively new operation like this is hardly a "hitting the wall" result---as yet. Also, one wonders why, if much of the content is gleaned from existing CNN stuff, why this operation is having even a slight shortfall in profits. Perhaps they aren't doing a great selling or marketing job?