Print is still overvalued?

[Barty]

As everyone knows, the newspaper and magazine business has taken a monstrous beating in the last decade. Yet according to this

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...posite/257857/

Print still commands 25% of ad dollars while having only 7% of eyeballs. So print is in a way still overvalued. Mobile, meanwhile, is undervalued with only 1% of ad dollars despite having 10% of eyeballs.

Now, obviously having a full page spread in the NYT or WSJ is still a much more appealing prospect than a little 200x50 pixel ad on a 3.5" screen. But some of that is offset by the younger demographic that's supposedly more desirable by advertisers. At any rate, it's still a huge discrepancy.

I think the only time I read print mags any more is in the doctor's waiting room. And yes, I do look at the glossy ads.

[QuantumIguana]

Eyeballs aren't everything. It's possible that they get more of a return out of print ads than out of ads in other media, despite having less percentage of the eyeballs. I don't know if this is true or not, but it could be true. Businesses do make mistakes, but generally, they aren't going to overpay if they realize they are overpaying.

Perhaps the ads in print are read by people with more disposable income. Perhaps people are more likely to respond to print ads than mobile ads. I'm often baffled by on-line ads, often I see ads that don't match with what someone viewing that web page would actually want. Print ads are generally more tailored to the demographic that would read that magazine.

[Penforhire]

There is still too much fakery in on-line click-though ads. Too many bot-nets and viruses that perform clicks without a real eyeball wanting to see that ad.

Sort of like spam e-mails. Who ever ordered something they got spam on? Someone must to make it worth doing but I can't imagine who is screwing it up for the rest of us. I like some of the proposals for a nickel or such charge for each unsolicited e-mail (that gets refunded if you approve the sender).

Perhaps the style of online advertising diminishes it's value. An awful lot of advertising just presents the product, expecting the viewer to click on it. If the viewer follows up on the ad at a later date by visiting the vendor's website directly, there is less revenue earned by the advertiser. Couple that with people simply refusing to click on the ad (many people have been trained to not click on suspicious links, which a lot of advertising qualifies as; some don't as a matter of principle) and the perceived value of online advertising is even less.

Then again, maybe online advertising doesn't work. If someone is unwilling to pay for the sites they visit, who says that they are willing to pay for the products advertised.

[carpetmojo]

I hope whoever it is that's lost an eye to make up the 7% gets well soon, fancy bothering somebody in their position just to take a survey.......