North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: decreased caching efficiency?
Daniel Senie wrote: > > So, when Sears buys a full page advertisement in the Boston Globe, they should > get that for free, and only have to pay the Globe when someone shows up at > the door holding a copy of the ad? > > Sears gains brand recognition through its ads in newspapers, on TV, and on > any other medium it employs. > > Banner advertising impressions serve exactly this purpose. > I cannot tell to whom you are replying, as your argument supports mine. Yep, I agree. Sears pays a fixed price to the Globe. It doesn't vary depending on how many folks buy that paper that day, and how many others happen to pass it along, or leave it on the train to be picked up by others. OTOH, measuring banner "impressions" isn't like that at all. A bad business model based on incorrect delivery assumptions. Meanwhile, some folks seem to have the idea that banner ads pay for content, and you shouldn't look at the content unless you also look at the ads. I'll remind folks that ads don't pay for anything. Consumer purchases pay. Does somebody here argue that every consumer should be required to buy every product they see advertised on television, or never watch the shows? (Admittedly, some places it seems that anyone will argue anything anytime.) I routinely throw away newspaper advertising circulars. I routinely tape TV shows, and skip the ads. I routinely read Wired (Washington Post, etc, etc) with images and cookies turned off. Now that we have beaten the philosophical part to death, could we please return to how to fix the topic of this thread: "decreased caching efficiency?" That's a technical problem! [email protected] Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32