Analyze this: MediaDailyNews has analyzed some data collected by someone else (Veronis Suhler) and makes a grand leap to conclude there is something significant in finding “the amount of money Madison Avenue invests in (different) media is growing is growing increasingly exaggerated in favor of the oldest media. Print media outlets generate a far greater yield of advertising dollar relative to their share of consumer time.”
As I’ve said before, I’m beginning to think there should be a law against allowing reporters (who are notorious for avoiding statistics courses in college) to analyze data. For me, this “analysis” greatly exagerates any correlation between “time spent” and “return on investment” of media dollars. Unless some research is provided to show a direct correlation between “time spent” and “return on investment,” I don’t see how this matters.
If one were an analyst rather than a reporter one would drill down into the results of such faux-findings and ask, “why?” Chances are one would discover that a big chunk of newspaper revenues comes from grocery stores and automobile dealerships that can directly measure their ad-dollars spent to revenue generated (via coupons, for example) — the only metric that matters to them. Really, how much time do shoppers need to spend with the medium to dump out the inch-thick stack of Sunday newspaper advertising inserts (again, that have an ROI mechanism built in via coupons) as they head out the door to Target? On the other hand, automobile dealerships are surely learning how to divert ad dollars to the web…but only because of the direct results, not because of “time spent” analysis. Dealerships still spend a big chunk of their ad dollars on local newspapers…because it still works for them.
(And that doesn’t even take into consideration the whole time continuum issues raised when one tries to explain how total time spent with a medium even matters if advertisers merely purchase 30 and 60 increments of the total time.)