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

121–130 of 176 posts

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

#121

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

T2_t2 wrote: post #16
samspenc wrote: post #11

But... here's the revenue and profits for Google and Facebook since 2017 (when the article appears to have been written), including analyst forecasts for the next year (* are analyst forecasts). 2017 2018* 2019* Google revenue $110.86B $136.47B $162.64B Facebook revenue $40.65B $55.36B $68.87B Apple revenue $265.60B $277.91B $289.25B While Apple's growth rate seems to be slowing down (due to iPhone sales slowing), bo…

The article is weird in that Google has the single greatest advantage - YouTube. Ctrl + F youtube and ... nothing. TV ad revenue is going to start changing, but the value of video ads is massive. Google has not just YouTube, but the best video advertising platform for others to use. If 15% of the US$70B on TV ads moves to YouTube, Google's growth should be sustainable. Multiply that by not just by the USA but Europe,…

> If 15% of the US$70B on TV ads moves to YouTube, Google's growth should be sustainable

What do you base that estimate off of? The last anyone heard, there were leaks saying that YouTube was barely break-even as late as 2015 and then the "Adpocalypse" occurred in 2017 that dropped ad spending on YouToube significantly. Articles corroborating both are easily found on Google.

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

#122

Post by ethbro »

aasasd wrote: post #108
skywhopper wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misread the article, which is not about the segment of the ad market that wants to know so much about its audience. Instead it’s about the ads that are currently on TV. The ads that are about broad brand recognition, not about microtargeting the audience. The point is that Google and Facebook already won the battle for their markets but they have no particular advantage over other media companies in compe…

Personally I didn't even know Google and Facebook tried to produce something. What was that? I've only heard about YouTube's programs for creators, with workshops, free studio time and such.

This article was from a little over a year ago, and detailed what Google and Facebook were producing.

I think your ignorance of their offerings (and I couldn't name anything either!) says what we need to know about their success.

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

#123

Post by MarkMc »

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…

It doesn't matter whether people will pay for content. If that content can be monetised through advertising then it's valuable.

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

#124

Post by harry8 »

Elon musk seems to have digital advertising figured with a spend with goog/facebrick/etc of precisely $0. Why is this so seldom mentioned when digital advertising is mentioned?

He sells a crapload of stuff with fantastic advertising campaigns with no paid spots at all.

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

#125

Post by nicodjimenez »

In media you roughly have 3 segments:

1) High end (HBO, Disney, ...) 2) Medium end (TV, Netlix, ...) 3) Low end (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram)

The supply of (1) and (2) are limited. There's only so many shows that can be produced at the quality of Sopranos, and only so many sports people are willing to sit though commercials to watch (in the US it's NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, UFC).

The supply of (3) (mostly user generated content) is nearly infinite because the curation is low touch and automated with software.

Ultimately the big constraint for media is the amount of time people are willing to spend watching either high end content with no ads, or low end content with ads. Time is precious.

In the long term there will probably be a backlash against tech addiction and people will spend less time on low end user generated content. But even that is hard to predict.

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

#126

Post by judge2020 »

zozbot123 wrote: post #109
hyperbovine wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wouldn't. Google search is garbage these days (if only because it's pretty much a monoculture, and that leads to SEO arms races) and their other services can easily be replaced by paid equivalents that are far less likely to be a single point of failure.

> other services can easily be replaced

I agree with you regarding services that are entirely technology-based (GDocs, Drive, etc.) but so much of Google is the definition of a monopoly (in the sense of "hard to enter the market"):

- You can't replace Gmail without keeping your Google account open so that any old emails get forwarded to your new address (although this is a problem with any old mail server)

- Google Maps is by far the most dominant maps service, besides Apple Maps (but only on iOS) and I don't see OpenStreetMap implementing turn-by-turn directions.

- Youtube content creators already have dedicated fanbases on Youtube, and the vast majority of those subscribers don't care enough about the content creator to download another app just to watch their content.

Also:

> easily be replaced by paid equivalents

There's a reason Google is so big right now: everything is free. If you had to pay for any of Google's services I can guarantee they would have a small fraction of the usage they do today.

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

#127

Post by harry8 »

judge2020 wrote: post #120
harry8 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay me and I'll lie to you about what Google will do if that's what will make you happy. No sillier than paying Google given their credibility is zero and there are so consequences to them for lying.

What are you referring to? I can't think of one incident where Google straight lied to the customer about what they do. They also remove tracking and ads from certain partner websites if you do decide to pay for it: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

Do you really, honestly, truly believe they don't track you if you pay them not to? Genuine question.

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

#128

Post by Wowfunhappy »

harry8 wrote: post #127
judge2020 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you referring to? I can't think of one incident where Google straight lied to the customer about what they do. They also remove tracking and ads from certain partner websites if you do decide to pay for it: https://contributor.google.com/v/beta

Do you really, honestly, truly believe they don't track you if you pay them not to? Genuine question.

Um, yeah, I do, unless there's evidence to the contrary. Do you really honestly truly believe Google is outright lying?

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

#129

Post by ethbro »

MarkMc wrote: post #123
themagician wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It doesn't matter whether people will pay for content. If that content can be monetised through advertising then it's valuable.

The thing about unpaid content is that you have no market signal about its true value.

We know Avengers can bring in X ticket sales + Y movie purchases + etc. But what's a million YouTube view video worth?

The actual content value is important because it tells you what people are willing to do to watch it.

If you over-ad something that people are only watching because it's free and doesn't have ads? I'm guessing that doesn't end well.

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

#130

Post by simonsarris »

harry8 wrote: post #124

Elon musk seems to have digital advertising figured with a spend with goog/facebrick/etc of precisely $0. Why is this so seldom mentioned when digital advertising is mentioned? He sells a crapload of stuff with fantastic advertising campaigns with no paid spots at all.

By that metric, so does Trump. Twitter doesn't send them a bill because they make money for Twitter by existing, so maybe it's really Twitter that has it figured out. The big names work for Twitter for free!

It's true that for certain kinds of people and circumstances you can sell your own brand. But generally people cannot be Musk or Trump (least of all want to take any risks) so they have to pay for eyeballs.

Post reply on HN