Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 176 posts

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#71

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #58
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

I read it more that growth percentage won't be as high in the future. Not that there won't be growth. That makes sense to me for Google. They have played out most of their bag of tricks to get more ad impressions. Everything above the fold is an ad, or a link to a Google owned property for any query you can monetize now. And any video on YouTube with revenue potential has a forced ad view. That wasn't true in the pas…

[deleted]

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#72

Post by shawn »

themagician wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”.

This isn’t really true. I’ve been trying to demonstrate this by curating some interesting and educational YouTube videos in one place: https://www.laarc.io/l/videos

You’re right that there’s a lot of noise to sift through. But there are real gems.

People may not pay for it directly, but they pay for it with their time and attention. In most cases that can be translated to dollars for popular items. You can get a sense of estimated value by looking at socialblade. Here’s a content creator that recently rose to fame: https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UC5_do3JQAPHA1rIlM-2...

(If anyone knows how this guy got ~300k subscribers almost overnight, I’d love to hear from you. It’s a mystery, but it doesn’t seem like foul play. Just lucky social exposure with some good timing.)

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#73

Post by manigandham »

disishhsha wrote: post #43
manigandham wrote: post #27

Another nonsensical article about adtech. This is not how the industry works. Apple does not have a chance at buying Google because they have the same market cap. Google and Facebook have a massive advantage in scale and precision which is why 2 of the top 10 biggest companies on the planet are ad networks. The valuations come from the sheer profit they generate, not their assets, and how much Disney spends on conten…

> Half of the world's population still isn't online so there's plenty of room for growth in the future too. The offline half doesn’t have that much money to spend, right? Making some assumptions and approximating, would it be wrong to say that potential gains from bringing new people online ≈ global GDP growth? Currently that’s in the low single digits.

Low single digits is fine when you're among the biggest companies on the planet. We're talking about 10s of billions in profit. Amazon is now getting into the space and is a strong contender to become #3 biggest player.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#74

Post by joejerryronnie »

qha wrote: post #15
everdev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how much of the internet is powered by digital advertising? The web will look a lot different if that bubble bursts.

Going back to what it was 20 years ago? I'm sold!

I've been awaiting the return of marching ants and "under construction" gifs for years.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#75

Post by scarface74 »

MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The difference is that Google’s profit can easily be cut off by an ad blocker.

Facebook’s ads are “organic” and are viewed mostly on mobile within an app - meaning harder to block.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#76

Post by throwawaymath »

themagician wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

> Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”.

Are you sure? Why are you sure?

And as a corollary: even if most people won't pay for it, are you sure it won't still obtain a majority in its market? For any given successful product, most people don't buy it.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#77

Post by darkpuma »

themagician wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

The success many youtube creators have on Patreon demonstrates that many people would gladly pay for their content. Whether they'd pay google for the content instead of the creator themselves is another matter entirely... People like the content creators a lot more than they like google/youtube itself.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#78

Post by xapata »

themagician wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

Much of that "garbage" content is remarkably successful at capturing attention.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#79

Post by hyperbovine »

themagician wrote: post #62
MarkMc wrote: post #41

Wow this article is so very wrong - Google and Facebook have enormous advantages over Disney because (a) they have other people producing valuable content for free ; (b) they know much more about each viewer than Disney. Google's revenue today is six times as large as it was a decade ago. And I expect its revenue in a decade to be at least 3 times as large as it is today. The reason is that many of the causes of past…

The content that Google and Facebook produce is garbage. It’s only barely better than nothing at all. Most people would not pay for the kind of content that shows up on Facebook and YouTube by so-called “content creators”. Facebooks ads are garbage except in certain circumstances. Everyone knows this, including the big brands, but they continue to do it because it makes the board happy when they see their brand on FB…

I would pay to use Google. Especially if it meant they would remove the tracker from out of my ass.

Re: The math’s not pretty on digital advertising’s future revenues? (2017)

#80

Post by throwawaymath »

darawk wrote: post #67
gibybo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earnings multiples reflect the amount of future earnings growth. He laid out an argument for larger future earnings growth.

None of the growth oriented items he listed are even remotely capable of justifying 2x the multiple of other media companies.

Why do you say that?
Post reply on HN