Part of this lies with the problems that were never addressed in traditional media. For instance, Rolling Stone may charge a certain amount for advertising based on the fact that the magazine comes to my house, but there are months when I just lay it on the coffee table & never open it up. Then other times there are issues I return to for months. While we’re resigned to the idea that advertising in traditional media is more or less a shot in the dark, there seems to be an idea that we can track users’ behavior online & therefore monitor the effectiveness of ads. This is, for the most part, a total myth. A lot of page “views” are the equivalent of flipping to page 32 in Rolling Stone. It’s just people clicking around, you never really know when they’re paying attention.

In truth, a page with a story & an ad is a page with a story & an ad, whether you’re looking at it on paper or on a screen. And there’s a possibility that someone is going to notice it or ignore it. The big distinction is that you aren’t expected to click on dry ink… that expectation of click-throughs throws everything off. But the fact of the matter is that you don’t need a goddamn website to sell a box of Tide. That’s never been the case & it’s never going to be the case. And if you sit down to watch an episode of Seinfeld, you’re not going to click on your tv to take you to the Honda website to check out their newest hybrid vehicle before the show even begins. But if the commercial is well done, perhaps you will research the vehicle later.

Commercials are commercials, ads are ads, & branding is branding. Click-throughs are a load of horse shit. If there’s no money in online media, it’s not a fundamental problem with the internet, it’s a problem in the relationship between digital content providers & advertisers. The expectations are skewed, the efforts are misguided (focusing on trashy banner ads linking to ridiculously elaborate flashy websites), & the rates are horse shit. I pay more attention to ads on hulu.com than I’ve ever paid to any ad on tv simply because there’s not enough time to divert my attention anywhere else. And I’ve watched almost 2 whole seasons of the Mary Tyler More show, probably 3 seasons of the Office, 1 of Arrested Development, & several movies. If they aren’t getting premium crash for those spots, it’s certainly not “just because it’s the internet.”

The suggested “problem” of “amateur content” is absolutely ridiculous. Whether it’s some kid whacking some other kid in the head with a shovel on YouTube or Gallagher smashing watermelons on Comedy Central, what’s the difference? Other than the fact that the YouTube vid is genuinely funny & Gallagher is a hack. I mean… just because you throw a bunch of money at Dane Cook, just because he’s got hair & make-up & lighting doesn’t mean it’s quality content. A lot of folks would disagree, but that’s the point… it’s only about eyeballs.

Why not force a commercial between every 3 videos on YouTube? Something unobtrusive, but effective, like hulu.com does. And then share the revenue between the 3 videos’ content creators. And the ads should be priced based on the reach of the videos, like TV.

These “LonelyGirl15 didn’t make any money lololol internet sux!!!! Traditional media 4ever!” type comments are kind of pathetic. The problem isn’t with the content, it’s not with the content delivery, it’s with online advertising. It generated interested, which is the one & only job of content.

Perhaps content providers just need to get some balls & demand fair compensation for ads. Then there will be money to be divvied out to content owners. Then quality will jump. The big problem could just be that so many content providers have given “ownership” (in the practical sense) to “ad networks” who are interested in mass quantities & don’t necessarily understand the link between content and content creators. This needs to be taken back. Bid-based systems like Google’s AdSense are the true enemies of content creators, driving ad rates into the ground.

As for music, it’s never relied on ads for revenue, so it’s a horse of an entirely different color. Music’s problem is that it’s incredibly overvalued by the labels. No one has $40,000 to fill up a 160gb iPod one song at a time for $1 ea, but if songs were between $.08 & $.25 ea, people would be more likely to pay for the music they download, over time filling their iPod at $3,000-$10,000 (the cost of a 200-600 cd collection at $15 a pop). The interest is there. The volume is there. P2P has proven this. It shouldn’t be hard to judge consumer behavior & adjust the price & delivery system in order to make profit.

Honestly, this was a pretty worthless read. It’s 2008 & this guy is like “I don’t have any answers, but there’s a problem somewhere… I don’t know where it is…” I mean… all of this stuff is pretty fucking obvious.