This is admittedly dated now (2011), but according to it, print subscribers to the New York Times were each worth $385 annually in advertising alone (more from subscription fees, of course) while monthly online readers were worth $3.85 annually in ad revenue, two orders of magnitude less:
That resembles what I remember reading for a decade+ about the print-to-digital newspaper transition: online ads command lower rates than print ads. Which is really mysterious, if online ads backed with persistent tracking and targeting are truly more effective.
Citation? What you fail to realize is that lower efficiency can induce more spending.
Do you think someone who trades their compact car in for a truck will spend less on gasoline because it's not as efficient?
Advertising was massive before the Internet, it's massive now, and it will be massive even if we prevent them from inferring life threatening secrets like sexual preferences for better targeted ads.
> Citation? What you fail to realize is that lower efficiency can induce more spending.
Please explain to me how a $1 ad which generated $0.01 in marginal profit, but now generates -$0.01 in marginal profit will continue to be funded. I'd love to know.
