Audi's Ad aired both online and TV in Japan.
Sunday 4 May 2008
Funny But Creative Advertisement
They are not online ads... but very very creative!!! Let's all check them out.
Newspaper Online vs. Print Ad Revenue: The 10% Problem
by Scott Karp
How will newspapers shift their business center of gravity online the same way most have shifted their audience center of gravity? That is the question keeping every newspaper executive awake at night.
It’s hard to compare apples and oranges — a big pat of the problem — but the online ad looks like about a quarter of the screen:
So let’s say I wanted to buy a quarter page ad in the Sunday edition for each of four weekends across a month. A half page is 63 column inches, so four quarter pages would be 126 column inches for the four ads. At a half page rate of $1,247 per column inch, that’s $157,122 for the four quarter page display ads in print.
Those ads would run in the Money, Business, or Week in Review sections, so would reach people who didn’t necessarily look in the employment section. It’s difficult to compare it then to the $7,500, which gets you a 20% share of voice display ad in the online job market section. But given that the NYTimes.com has nearly 10 times the reach of the Sunday print edition, $157,122 vs. $7,500 is a pretty eye-popping disparity.
So for $10,000, you get a 20% share of voice on the homepage for a full month. For the same $10,000, you can also reach about 1 million people in the daily print edition, for ONE day, with a 10 column inch ad (based on open rate of $1,056 per column inch), which is about 1/12 of a page.
With such a disparity in how the New York Times values its print advertising and how it values its online advertising, is it any wonder that it suffers from the 10% problem?
by Scott Karp
FROM NEW YORK TIMES
How will newspapers shift their business center of gravity online the same way most have shifted their audience center of gravity? That is the question keeping every newspaper executive awake at night.
Bill Keller, the New York Times Executive Editor and excellent editorial emissary, made the following comment in an interview:
But the Web audience is growing at a great clip, while print circulation is not. And online revenues are growing faster, too, albeit from a smaller base. If the trend continues, there’s little doubt that — “eventually” — online becomes the main business.
Most newspaper executive use words like “eventually” to push off into a fuzzy future a transition that they know needs to happen sooner rather than later, but still find impossible to conceptualize because of the 10% problem.
What is the 10% problem? Let’s look at the New York Time’s numbers.
According to the NYT online media kit, here are the print and online audience numbers:
Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
Print circulation - weekday: 1,120,420
Print circulation - Sunday: 1,627,062
NYT doesn’t report ad revenue for NYTimes.com broken out from its News Media Group (which includes mostly other local newspapers, but is likely dominated by NYT revenue)
Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000
Online unique users (12 month average): 13,372,000
Print circulation - weekday: 1,120,420
Print circulation - Sunday: 1,627,062
NYT doesn’t report ad revenue for NYTimes.com broken out from its News Media Group (which includes mostly other local newspapers, but is likely dominated by NYT revenue)
Total advertising revenue: $483,594,000
Online advertising revenue: $51,000,000
Let’s assume that the NYTimes.com has roughly the same portion of ad revenue coming from online. What you find, with some modest rounding, is that print circulation is about 10% of total audience reach, while online advertising revenue is 10% of total ad revenue — the economics are nearly the perfect inverse of what they should be.
But why is this so? Let’s take a look at NYT print and online ad rates, using employment as an example. Here are the print display ad rates for employment:
And here is the rate for an online employment display ad in the job market section of NYTimes.com:
It’s hard to compare apples and oranges — a big pat of the problem — but the online ad looks like about a quarter of the screen:
So let’s say I wanted to buy a quarter page ad in the Sunday edition for each of four weekends across a month. A half page is 63 column inches, so four quarter pages would be 126 column inches for the four ads. At a half page rate of $1,247 per column inch, that’s $157,122 for the four quarter page display ads in print.
Those ads would run in the Money, Business, or Week in Review sections, so would reach people who didn’t necessarily look in the employment section. It’s difficult to compare it then to the $7,500, which gets you a 20% share of voice display ad in the online job market section. But given that the NYTimes.com has nearly 10 times the reach of the Sunday print edition, $157,122 vs. $7,500 is a pretty eye-popping disparity.
Let’s try another print/online comparison. NYTimes.com also has a package called Employer of the Day, which gets you an ad on the homepage of NYTimes.com:
The homepage of nytimes.com is viewed by more than 1 million unique visitors every day. For Job Market advertisers seeking quick access to an extremely large audience, the Employer of the Day position can deliver a branded message twice per week.
Attract passive jobseekersThis position exists on the homepage of nytimes.com in order to attract jobseekers who may not be visiting nytimes.com specifically to visit Job Market. This provides you with an outstanding opportunity to woo potential jobseekers, who may be on the site to read articles, view award-winning multimedia content or use any one of our other services. By becoming the Employer of the Day, all visitors to nytimes.com become potential jobseekers for you to target.
Here’s the pricing:
Here’s the pricing:
So for $10,000, you get a 20% share of voice on the homepage for a full month. For the same $10,000, you can also reach about 1 million people in the daily print edition, for ONE day, with a 10 column inch ad (based on open rate of $1,056 per column inch), which is about 1/12 of a page.
With such a disparity in how the New York Times values its print advertising and how it values its online advertising, is it any wonder that it suffers from the 10% problem?
Of course, the New York Times can’t just go charging the same rates for online employment ads as it does in print. In print, no other channels reach the same high-end national audience — but online, the competition is fierce.
Still, it seems impossible for the New York Times or other newspapers to overcome the 10% problem without beginning to value online ads at a premium, the same as they do in print, rather than making online look like a giveaway by comparison.
Here’s a telling line from the NYT’s Display Advertising: Print+Online Packages:
Print and online are powerful, and complementary, recruitment channels; Job Market integrates both to provide an unsurpassed employment marketplace.
All of our display listings now go online for 30 days at nytimes.com so that you can recruit from two top-quality audience pools.
I’m sure it’s true that both audience pools are “top-quality” — it’s just that one happens to be 10 times as large — the challenge is to bring ad rates in line with that disparity in the face of fierce competition online
Online Ad Spend By Industry
Interesting summary of which industries are spending money in online advertising. Figures are US only and should widely differ per country, but it’s an interesting information giving editors an idea of what content should actually net advertising money.
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
April 11, 2008, 2:27 pm
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
By Saul Hansell
Sometimes you see a graph that tells the whole story. The one in The Wall Street Journal this morning showing the relative share of online advertising spending of the big players is one of them. (The data, from eMarketer, is below.)
The big picture is that the online ad market is booming. But the big portals that dominated spending in the early part of the decade — AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft — are all losing share, even though all of them have been buying up advertising companies. Social networking sites and sites further out the long tail are increasing their share of audience time, and thus ad dollars.
You might say it is like the big three TV networks after cable arrived. Except for one difference: Google. No cable network arose to sop up one-third of the commercial time.
So as we try to second-guess the mating games of the big Internet companies, this graph raises the question: Does combining two past-their-prime giants that are both losing market share really solve any problems?
The Online Ad Story in a Picture
By Saul Hansell
Sometimes you see a graph that tells the whole story. The one in The Wall Street Journal this morning showing the relative share of online advertising spending of the big players is one of them. (The data, from eMarketer, is below.)
The big picture is that the online ad market is booming. But the big portals that dominated spending in the early part of the decade — AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft — are all losing share, even though all of them have been buying up advertising companies. Social networking sites and sites further out the long tail are increasing their share of audience time, and thus ad dollars.
You might say it is like the big three TV networks after cable arrived. Except for one difference: Google. No cable network arose to sop up one-third of the commercial time.
Source: eMarketer
It’s not that we didn’t know this. Of course Google is booming and the traditional portals are struggling. But the numbers are stark: Last year, Google’s advertising revenue of $6 billion was roughly the same as that of Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft combined.
Google’s growth is slowing, but it continues to be a juggernaut. EMarketer estimates that ad revenue at Google will increase by 32 percent this year. That makes it the only one of these four companies that will grow faster than the ad market as a whole, which is estimated to expand by 23 percent this year. (To be sure, the uncertain economy makes any predictions especially suspect this year, but the relative trends appear stable.)
So as we try to second-guess the mating games of the big Internet companies, this graph raises the question: Does combining two past-their-prime giants that are both losing market share really solve any problems?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
