Is the online advertising bubble finally starting to pop?
blogs.harvard.edu
blogs.harvard.edu
Then maybe it's time to quit punditry; that was 8 years ago and the online advertising market has grown 2.5x since.
> I made “The Advertising Bubble” a chapter in The Intention Economy in 2012.
The online advertising market has grown 30% since.
Since no market can grow forever, at some point there will be a dip in the industry. Maybe in less than five years, maybe in ten years. And when it finally happens, this kind of pundit will be telling us "they had called it correctly, before anyone else".
Isn't the very nature of bubbles to get inflated? 2.5x or more?
The main difference compared to a solid venture is not that they see growth (that's what they do best!), or for how many years they see growth, but that it's an inflated (hence "bubble") growth that can (and eventually will) disappear overnight.
A non-bubble industry will also see growth, and will also see decline. But it will not see a huge sudden drop from hero to zero, unless something extraordinary happens (e.g. a war, alien invasion, etc).
The are plenty of similar examples.
[1] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/50363cf324ac8e905e7df8...
Advertising sales have been growing for ~100 years, through newspapers, radio, TV and now online. AS new technology grows some of the spending migrates, and the overall market expands.
What is the argument that this is a bubble?
Additionally, the non-online advertising market is huge. TV advertising in the US alone is almost 25% bigger than the online market[1]. People don't talk about that 40-year old "bubble" bursting, even though it seems inevitable that money will move to online.
Do people really expect there to be less money spent in advertising?
[1] http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Pw...
Online advertising currently feels more tuned to marketing and branding than actual advertising. (Ex: Seeing the same ad 20 times is crappy advertising but good marketing/branding)
Online advertising is a powerful tool: no other medium of advertising offers more efficient tracking and analysis metrics. Unfortunately, it's also the most hard to do properly.
The biggest issue is most clients do not understand online advertising: they assume it's just like TV, in that, you have a creative that you show online to people and then hope for the best.
Online advertising is not a one way street: you can interact with the user, see how they respond and then tailor the advertising to their needs.
No other medium offers this ability.
Consultants like patio11 make a living off this knowledge (and give away this knowledge for free on their sites).
This inefficiency is currently arbitraged by two parties:
1. People who understand that clients do not understand online advertising: they offer inexpensive CPMs to agencies so that they can meet their "numbers" (like one does in the TV realm). Then they "somehow" meet these numbers, often in ways that does not help the client at all.
2. Online deal sites who know a certain store/brand is offering a great deal and create pages with deal information so that people click on the links to the product leading to the site getting kickbacks from the store/brand. Some of these sites keep the whole kickback to themselves and some split it with the users, but this is money that the store/brand paid out unnecessarily because they otherwise had failed to convert a customer directly.
I don't understand how it's a bubble since the decline has been steady over the last few years. A bubble is spectacular, not gradual. A bubble expands and then suddenly and unexpectedly pops. A bubble ends in a steep and surprising decline. All of the trends here with fraud and growing use of ad-blocking software have been on the horizon for a very long time.
It doesn't sound like a bubble, but talking about "bubbles" gets lots of clicks.
His credibility got killed in my eyes after reading that. Predicting the same thing over and over to no avail is called being a broken clock.
What he's really predicting is that the derivative will go negative. It's kinda unbecoming that this is the 'logic' that passes for a blog published by school that is supposed to be really elite and prestigious.
I have no idea what he's even trying to say, but it sounds ominous.
http://digiday.com/publishers/shane-smith-vice-media-intervi...
Tracking is not something that can be easily improved, either you use cookies which are acceptable, widespread, but sadly very limited in functionality or you get into the world of supercookies and fingerprinting which is not yet properly regulated and where a few players are disregarding industry self-regulation to get as much data as possible.
And Booking.com should just learn to delete all that they know of my searches when I actually book something.
In my own digital marketing experience, we're still seeing a positive ROI on search only ads. We stopped running display ads awhile due to the impracticality of the approach with the rise of ad blocking software. We use ad blocking software. We developed built-in banner blindness for display ads when not using the software. Display ads annoy us. Why wouldn't they annoy our target audience?
Instead of wasting money on failed advertising methods, we reallocated our time on creating value through our blog and promoting that valuable content (not sponsored content) through email, search advertising, social media, and other avenues.
The general consensus was that the author of the report didn't really understand what they were talking about.
And when VC money dries out, startups will start tracking ROI and stop wasting money on branding. And that will cause domino effect.
Of course, there might be no bubble and this is a new normal.
"A customer who has already made a purchase may be bombarded with redundant repeat ads wherever he roams: what we might call the phenomenon of “repetitive irrelevance."
Its pretty easy to not do this on a lot of ad platforms. Facebook calls it "exclusion audiences".
It's either that or you stop spending money and lose your market / niche to the big players.
Alphabet consists of a group of companies that are not necessarily affected by ad dollars - no ?
edit - i guess it includes google also:
The others (Fiber, Nest, etc) are mostly losing money.