The fake-ness of targeted ads – via Bloomberg Business
A visually stunning indictment of the online ad industry, Bloomberg-style. Not only do we not pay attention to online ads anymore, but the figures the advertisers pay for are way off. Bots and bought traffic inflate the advertising income while having no impact whatsoever on its efficacy. Depressing.
Advertisers feel ripped off and consumers hate them. So is the end of online ads? I hope so.
But then again, how will web pages support themselves? If online advertisers stop advertising, what will happen to web content? Possibly a move to quality?
— x —
TV vs Internet, via New York Books
An epic (and very long) look at the state of the television industry, and related media. The article compares two industry analysts’ views: one (Michael Wolff) insistent that core television is here to stay, and that faddish new media will continue to be unsuccessful in changing habits…
“But despite sharing the vulnerabilities of other long-standing media—shrinking audiences, changing consumption patterns, new competition for ad dollars—the television dinosaur has only grown fatter.”
… the other (Alan Wolk) looking to the new television model:
“When it comes to advertising revenues, declining audiences have so far had an ambiguous impact, sometimes driving up advertising prices for demographic segments that are becoming harder to reach, like children. But this is a melting iceberg model: shrinking real estate may drive prices higher, but at some point, there’s not much ground left to stand on. “
Wolff stresses the improving quality of the content (which probably shows that he doesn’t actually watch much TV) vs the “flakiness” encouraged by the online ad model. And that the online business model doesn’t work, while television is doing very well, thank you.
He doesn’t take into account, though, that nothing lasts forever. TV viewership is down 20% in the profitable 18-49 category. And “watching television” is starting to blend more and more with “going online”, with Netflix and similar offering quality and choice on your tablet or PC, and YouTube going more long-form. Assuming that TV is not already undergoing a significant disruption speaks of limited awareness of where the younger generation gets its entertainment and information. Saying that TV is “better” than its online equivalent is making a judgement call appropriate for his generation, not necessarily all generations. If TV ends up being the medium of choice for the elderly, the advertising income will go to where the young eyeballs are.
— x —
The future of cities, via Wired
Cities are changing. And that’s exciting. More attention is being placed on the combination of design and utility, with statement, community and environment all jostling for place on the podium. This collection of ideas and articles is surprising, awe-inspiring, envy-inducing and sometimes just plain weird.
— x —
The Internet of tomorrow, via TechCrunch
“Ask 30-year-olds how much time they spend online and it’s a big number, ask 18-year-olds and it’s greater still, but ask 12-year-olds and they can’t tell you, because, for them, there is no concept of online.”
Tom Goodwin introduces the concept of the “Thinternet”, the everywhere, thinly-spread content and coverage. What vertical portals did to help the adaptation of real-world media to the online format, horizontal splicing will do to the experience-based personal web. Ubiquitous connectivity, universal digitalization, aggregation and high-end UX combine to eliminate the barriers between the real world and the online one.
Is that scary or is that hopeful? To the future users, it’s probably neither. It just is.
— x —
Introducing… the napdesk. Work, then rest, then work, then rest… Ideal for workaholics. Or for people who like to take a break during the day.
(via My Modern Met)
— x —
Have an amazing and restful weekend, everyone!