<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: There is No Relationship Between Time Spent Online and Advertising Dollars</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/</link>
	<description>There are those who experiment and those who follow the formula</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
	<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: Jen, writer MembershipMillionaire.com</title>
		<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-34224</link>
		<dc:creator>Jen, writer MembershipMillionaire.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-34224</guid>
		<description>Aren't they already incorporating a lot of ads in those social networks? I got rid of my My Space account years ago and I'm not particularly interested in venturing into Facebook (as tempting as my sister makes it out to be). What I like about the latter though (what I have seen) are those banners that correspond to charitable causes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aren&#8217;t they already incorporating a lot of ads in those social networks? I got rid of my My Space account years ago and I&#8217;m not particularly interested in venturing into Facebook (as tempting as my sister makes it out to be). What I like about the latter though (what I have seen) are those banners that correspond to charitable causes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: mike</title>
		<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33736</link>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33736</guid>
		<description>5 hours?! you need some fiber.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>5 hours?! you need some fiber.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nikiscevak</title>
		<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33735</link>
		<dc:creator>nikiscevak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:51:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33735</guid>
		<description>John, maybe I am confusing myself. My point is the two trends have no causal relationship. That is, if we froze time spent online as it is today, the amount of online advertising would not go up because the gap between % of time spent and % of ad market would converge.

That's the key. Sure time spent is a contributing factor (that is, if no one spent any time on the Internet ad spend would be 0%) but I guess what I am arguing is that there will be a permanent discount. That % time spent online will always be much higher than % of ad market and people assuming one of the drivers of growth is that difference going away and I totally disagree with its premise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, maybe I am confusing myself. My point is the two trends have no causal relationship. That is, if we froze time spent online as it is today, the amount of online advertising would not go up because the gap between % of time spent and % of ad market would converge.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s the key. Sure time spent is a contributing factor (that is, if no one spent any time on the Internet ad spend would be 0%) but I guess what I am arguing is that there will be a permanent discount. That % time spent online will always be much higher than % of ad market and people assuming one of the drivers of growth is that difference going away and I totally disagree with its premise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John DeMayo</title>
		<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33734</link>
		<dc:creator>John DeMayo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:46:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33734</guid>
		<description>"The two biggest assumptions that kill businesses in online advertising is number one by far, that the gap between time spent online and share of overall advertising dollars will converge towards each other in a causal relationship. And the second, that big brands will move their brand-directed dollars online in a meaningful way."

But both of these assumptions have been coming true.  The gap between time spent online and share of overall advertising dollars is converging, and many big brands have moved meaningful brand-directed dollars online.

There is some correlation between time spent consuming media, the level of engagement with the media the percentage of time/screen/mindshare an advertiser gets as a percentage of that media, and the corresponding dollars spent on that advertising.

The reason email/chat doesn't monetize well per hour is because the advertising as a percentage of mindshare is small, because the consumer is otherwise focused.  The reason search monetizes so well is because the mindshare, timing, and relatedness of the advertising to the consumer need is huge.

Time spent IS a contributing factor to ad spend.  It's just one of many, and not necessarily more important then the others.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The two biggest assumptions that kill businesses in online advertising is number one by far, that the gap between time spent online and share of overall advertising dollars will converge towards each other in a causal relationship. And the second, that big brands will move their brand-directed dollars online in a meaningful way.&#8221;</p>
<p>But both of these assumptions have been coming true.  The gap between time spent online and share of overall advertising dollars is converging, and many big brands have moved meaningful brand-directed dollars online.</p>
<p>There is some correlation between time spent consuming media, the level of engagement with the media the percentage of time/screen/mindshare an advertiser gets as a percentage of that media, and the corresponding dollars spent on that advertising.</p>
<p>The reason email/chat doesn&#8217;t monetize well per hour is because the advertising as a percentage of mindshare is small, because the consumer is otherwise focused.  The reason search monetizes so well is because the mindshare, timing, and relatedness of the advertising to the consumer need is huge.</p>
<p>Time spent IS a contributing factor to ad spend.  It&#8217;s just one of many, and not necessarily more important then the others.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex Mather</title>
		<link>http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33732</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex Mather</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brontemedia.com/2008/02/21/there-is-no-relationship-between-time-spent-online-and-advertising-dollars/#comment-33732</guid>
		<description>Well said. &lt;a href="http://bokardo.com/archives/why-social-ads-dont-work/" rel="nofollow"&gt;Here's a similar post from a UX point of view from Josh Porter.&lt;/a&gt;

PS: fiber. get on it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well said. <a href="http://bokardo.com/archives/why-social-ads-dont-work/" rel="nofollow">Here&#8217;s a similar post from a UX point of view from Josh Porter.</a></p>
<p>PS: fiber. get on it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
