Re: [projectvrm] Theory of peak advertising

[Doc Searls < >]

Bill Ziff's point, or one of them, was that the value in PC Mag, PC Week and 
other Z-D pubs were at least partly (and in cases like Computer Shopper, 
almost entirely) in the ads.

The reason I accuse Google, et. al. of "body snatching" advertising is that 
the entire value system of "ads as content" got submerged — and has nearly 
drowned — since "ads as personal notifications paid for by responses" 
migrated over from the direct marketing world.

While some critics of what I wrote in 
<http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/doc/2013/10/06/what-the-ad-biz-needs-is-to-evict-direct-marketing/>
 point out that direct marketing (and direct response/adtech) are legitimate 
forms of advertising — and in the big-tent sense they are — the heart and 
soul of advertising is where the most artful meets the most desired: by its 
consumers.

But, as Tim Hwang, Adi Kamdar, Don Marti, Andrew Chen, myself and others are 
pointing out, the direct response/adtech business has peaked.

Is there interest in talking about this at IIW?

Doc


On Oct 13, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Shannon Clark 
<
 >
 wrote:

> But the computer shopper's value WAS entirely the ads. 
> 
> As a regular buyer of that magazine in the 90's the "content" was useless. 
> 
> The ads however were gold - they were the reason to buy the magazine. 
> 
> Ads as content is something I think most publications failed to appreciate 
> as they migrated online. Vogue is my goto example (but most fashion 
> magazines as well) - people but those magazines largely for the ads but 
> their online versions often stripped out all of that content. 
> 
> I did not buy the computer shopper for their articles or columns - I bought 
> it for the detailed sales brochures from most computer makers all in one 
> place. 
> 
> Shannon 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Oct 12, 2013, at 9:57 AM, "T.Rob" 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Don Marti 
>>> Magazine ads, though, don't peak.  Why?  Because they rely for
>>> effectiveness on the amount the advertiser spends, as perceived by the
>>> reader.  Signaling.
>>> 
>>> More ads make a magazine more valuable.  Instead of a death spiral like
>>> spam or web adtech, there's a value-building cycle.  A new magazine can
>>> rise if an ad there sends a strong signal.  (IMHO, good content has a
>>> multiplier effect on that reader-perceived ad spend.) More ads mean more
>>> money for content, more content means more readers, ad rates go up, and
>>> everyone's a winner.  
>> 
>> I'm recalling Computer Shopper in the '90s.  The post carrier must have 
>> hated that magazine.  It was like getting a giant phone book in the mail 
>> every month.  A catalog of computer stuff interspersed with content.
>> 
>> -- T.Rob
>>