Slashdot Mirror

Not even close. ABC/NBC/CBS do about 3-4 times more viewers than Fox News.

Since the FTC is cracking down on social media ads not being clearly marked as such. I'd suspect Amazon will be contacted by them shortly. Even though Amazon did mark them as ads, I expect the FTC will be coming out with new rules specifying what "clearly marked" means.

FNC is popular with the small portion of the overall media audience that it has because it is essentially the only outlet that bothers to in any way push back against the non-stop Dem-powered agenda

So you admit Faux "News" is biased. Then you try to claim F"N"C is popular with a small number of dumbasses who need to be told what to think. Why then does their propaganda hold 7 of the top 10 spots in total viewership? (Protip: Google "most watched political shows")

You cry about a liberal agenda in the media, and then you turn around and watch F"N"C? You do realize that whole bias-in-the-media thing is also an F"N"C propaganda point, don't you?

I can't imagine why you would watch that drivel, Shitcone. Perhaps that chamber has a nice echo to it?

Fed up with unwanted calls, telecom professional Roger Anderson programmed software—which he cheekily named the Jolly Roger Telephone Co.—to converse with the callers in the most infuriating way possible.

CNN can't beat ancient aliens on the history channel

This is the 2nd time I've heard this claim in the last 12 hours. (I was watching Fox last night and they couldn't stop talking about CNN.)

At first I just wrote it off as hyperbole, but I decided to factcheck it right now.

Google search returned mostly clickbait or rightwing sites. This often happens with stories like this because often they're the ones trying to make a big deal out of it.

Finally one of those sites linked to Ad Week which seems to me like a more reputable source.

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

Fox is still #1 although with lower viewership than last year but it was The History Channel, not Ancient Aliens specifically, that beat CNN out.

But isn't that all History Channel shows anymore?

I don't know. Let me check. No, it's a lot of Pawn Stars and American Pickers during the week and then Ancient Aliens on Fridays.

These are ratings for the entire week.

So while this may still be embarrassing for CNN it isn't clear that Ancient Aliens beat CNN in primetime.

This may trigger you. Hug your therapy dog in your safe space and maybe close your eyes

May 2018 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable News Network for 197 Straight Months
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

Didn't you think it a little pathetic to crow about one day ?

This may trigger you but people capable of critical thinking, who understand what news actually is, typically don't watch ANY cable news. There are far better things to do and it's much faster and more reliable to get news from other sources.

Here, you can borrow my "therapy dog".

But don't worry, Fox is still number one in the racist senior citizens demographic.

Don't bet on it: According to Nielsen Live +7-day data, in 2017 CNN’s median age was 60, while the median age of the Fox News and MSNBC viewer was 65.

And given the amount of racism on CNN and MSNBC, I think it's fair to say, they are giving Fox a run for its money when it comes to the "racist senior citizen demographic".

This may trigger you. Hug your therapy dog in your safe space and maybe close your eyes

May 2018 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable News Network for 197 Straight Months
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewse...

Didn't you think it a little pathetic to crow about one day ?

then advertising truly is meaningless.

You have begun on the path to seeing what this is all about. The study you cite earlier in your post, the one that quantified (estimated, guessed about convincingly) some vague notion of free advertising, was conducted by an advertising firm. They want to persuade you (persuasion being their game) that social media does have persuasive power, and, what is better, that their firm best understands that power (hence their new metrics) and thus are best positioned to conduct market research or advertising for you.
Google's transparency gallery is, in fact, an ad showcase. To the consumer, it looks like responsible transparency or some similar concoction of buzzwords that glow fuzzily in the heart; to the marketing departments and campaign staffs of the world, it is a sampler of ideas of how they can work with Google.
The media industry exists because they have persuaded the corporate and political worlds that persuasion works and that the media industry knows best how to persuade. Google, FB, TWTR, and their ilk must, to secure their existence, maintain the truth or illusion, whichever it be, that their ads change hearts and minds. If they seem dangerous tools that could be used by Russians or Nazis or the wrong side, all the better: dangerous things are powerful things, and you want a powerful company spreading word about your product/candidate, don't you?
Ignore any evidence that online advertising is rigged to make money for Google instead of making an impact among consumers. Fear Google's power instead: it's dangerous and thus powerful and so right for your advertising needs.

On cable, yes - Fox News wins. However, Fox's 2.5 million primetime viewers is well behind ABC's 8.8 million viewers. All the OTA news channels crush anything on cable - and would most likely have a LOT more influence due to their much larger viewerships.

There is no need for fake news or misinformation. Very good results are obtained by just choosing what subjects are covered or not. This is what mainstream media do andit works very well.

I assume you're referring to the most mainstream news outlet ever - Faux-"News".

Yeah, gotta love the way they pick and choose minor stories that nobody really cares about, and try to hyper-inflate them in a sad attempt to support Trumps racist, fear-mongering, anti-immigrant rhetoric.

Ever notice the the vast majority of the most watched, or "mainstream" "news" outllets are conservative?

I wonder why conservatives so desperately need to be told what to think. Don't they know how to think for themselves? You'd think those tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists would object to such mind control, wouldn't you? Yet every bit of evidence says otherwise. Perhaps their education is lacking?

If only there was some way to search the internet for information. I'd envision some web portal thingy where you type in a string and it searches for you, if such a thing existed in might pop up pages from say 2012 that were relevant at the time, though maybe it's possible that the same people who had the foresight to change his birth certificate had the same foresight to plant the story in case they needed it.

http://www.adweek.com/digital/...

That article describes the Facebook app his campaign used. Romney had one too.

Again the difference is the app made it painfully clear that it wasn't a quiz or a chance to win a free pony, it was to support his campaign. I don't have a Facebook page, never will so at some level I don't really give a shit, but false equivalences are false equivalences regardless.

an attempt at regaining the sub 30 market that broadcast news media has more or less completely lost.

Two words: Rachel Maddow.
http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser...

One of the most significant cable news ratings stories for Q2 '17 was the performance of The Rachel Maddow Show.
Maddow finished this past quarter as the No. 1 show across all of cable news in the all-important A25-54 demographic.

And it's not just the under-30 market. MSNBC took even younger audiences.

MSNBC also set network records in the adults 18-49 demo during weekday prime (M-F 8-11 p.m.), finishing at No. 1 for the first time ever for a full quarter.
While the achievement should be seen as a positive, the A18-49 demo is almost never cited by cable news advertisers.
The A25-54 demo is the standard in this genre.
A18-49 is the key demo for advertisers looking at broadcast and cable entertainment networks.

Generations raised on Jon Stewart's Daily Show want charming, intelligent hosts, hosting factual, informative and insightful shows.
They DO NOT WANT to feel like they are being click-baited to sit in front of the TV until that one particular bit of news they are interested in, and are continuously being promised is "coming up next", shows up in the "24-hour news cycle".
They want to feel like they've either learned something or understood something after watching a news show.
You know... Like how you already need to know about the things joked about on The Daily Show - in order to get the joke.

It's not a coincidence that so many entertainment shows are copying the Daily Show's infotainment format.
Some of them hosted by Daily Show alumni.
Humans LOVE to "get" the joke. Or anything else. It's in our genes to get a dopamine kick out of that "Oh! I get it now!" moment.

Alex Jones mines that same human need - only he, according to his talents, aims at the lowest common denominator audience.
The usual mix of stupid, lazy, mentally deranged and racist. Some of those audiences may overlap.

One year ago Facebook was caught allowing housing discrimination by race and they had to pull those ethnic filters to clean the egg off their faces. I wonder how long that was allowed before someone figured it out though.

> I have a feeling the culture will eventually become dumb and toxic enough that the thing implodes an people will move to some other format for social media.

If history is any indicator, I sadly concur. Consider the landscape of Social Media "platforms":

Timeline/History of Social Media

--
I thought Idiocracy (2006) was supposed to be a political satire and not a mockumentary / documentary / instruction manual ... *facepalm*

Robin Hood was a massive crook too.

Claiming the Gates Foundation's work in ineffective is laughable - the lack of polio around anymore is just one example.

So yes, he took money from rich people and rid us of polio with the proceeds. Modern day Robin Hood.

http://www.adweek.com/brand-ma...

Only 80 year olds get their news from NBC/CBS/ABC/NPR.

Fox News has the oldest audience of all TV news outlets, cable or network. The median age of a Fox News viewer is dead five years.

https://www.theatlantic.com/bu...

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser...

That's funny. When Twitter was first launched, I read that the 140 character limit was defined by SMS Text messages for mobile phones.

Whatever the reason, I've never been able to figure out the attraction of Twitter. I opened an account, followed some people, and every time I check, it just looks like a random mess of information. I can't remember the last time I actually found something useful on Twitter. What am I doing wrong? How do others make Twitter useful?

Clonehappy- come now. Has the public consciousness forgotten this old McAfee chestnut from last year?

McAfee Says He Lied About iPhone Hacking Method To Get Public Attention

Calling the man "batshit crazy" is not a criticism. He aspires to the title.

Whether he's crazy or pretending to be crazy is a non-issue. Delusional rantings are still unworthy of our attention whether they are intentionally delusional or authentic.

QVC has actually done a lot to keep up technologically. They make a good deal of revenue from purchases made by people watching their streams via their apps on mobile, Roku, AppleTV, Facebook, and their website. $4b of their $8.7b in revenue from 2016 was from people using the apps to make purchases. source

Don't forget Apple's commission on all of those sales, which is yuuuuge. Apple is a willing participant in these scams.

Yeah. Of course Google also makes 30% on all in-app scams on the Playstore. This adds up.

The kneejerk reaction of dismissing any suggestion of election meddling to "looking for excuses" for Clinton's loss is less than useful. Clinton lost. It's over. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be extremely concerned about the implications of some of the allegations.

The allegations are concerning as much as they matter regarding the explanation of the results of the presidential election. If the outcome of the presidential election was not influenced by the alleged hacks, the alleged hacks are of little concern. Consequently, and above all, those alleged hacks do not help to explain why Trump won.

One of the better articles I found on this subject is here: https://www.pastemagazine.com/...

I'd like to see the worst ones, then. That article is full of rants, but the author seems to be unable to give them weight. When the author tries to give facts, he fails, e.g.: the first accusation is that Trump is followed by an army of bots on social media, but that obvioulsy does not mean anything if you do not know how many bots are usually among the followers of famous people. In fact, in 2016 we knew that "More Than a Third of Trump’s and Clinton’s Twitter Followers Are Reportedly Fake", but the author seems to ignore that, or perhaps he is just blinded by his own hate.

What is mainstream? Fox News is the most watched news network and they are definitely not left wing.

Of course if all you watch is FOX News, you'll never learn about their ratings drop. Failing Faux News would never report on that.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/may-2017-ratings-for-first-time-since-2000-msnbc-beat-fox-news-cnn-on-weeknights/330611

Seriously, you're getting up in arms about a font not because it's difficult to read but because it doesn't look "professional"? It's easy to read, and it looks nice, who cares beyond that?

Anyone who cares whether their printed text is taken seriously or not.

It's been shown that same text has lower credibility when rendered in Comic Sans relative to "serious" fonts. That does not mean that Comic Sans is useless, of course. It's a great choice when you publish text that you do not want people to believe.

You know that it's a bad time when you can get more inspiring sounding space speeches from Rob Lowe dressed in a Colonel Sanders costume than you get from the president:

http://www.adweek.com/agencysp...

Sadly, we can be pretty sure that KFC is going to get that friggin sandwich into space on time. Trump's Mars rocket? Forget about it.

Wasn't there some 'choose your own adventure' game on Youtube, abusing those annotation links?

http://www.adweek.com/digital/...

"Shortly after Youtube announced annotations"

Well, there goes that platform :(

The headline (and original report) seem open to misinterpretation.

50% of mobile game revenue comes from just 0.15% of users according to this 2014 report. http://www.recode.net/2014/2/2...

70% of mobile game revenue comes from just 10% of users according to this 2016 report. http://www.adweek.com/digital/...

So while I believe the article that the average amount spent per iPhone is $40/year (mean), it's probably equally true that the "average iPhone user" (median) spends less than $5/year. (That number is just a guess because I don't have the data.) Queue all the people who will reply to this story saying "I spent ZERO over the past year".

The obvious solution is to move to using a fiber optic cable... which is actually what is used for all the absurdly large displays.

And televisions + cable boxes are cheaper than the computers that you'll need to watch Netflix with separate people.

You can watch Netflix on a $40 tablet, or on the cellphone you already own. Thanks for playing, though:

People are more likely to watch Netflix on phones in India, South Korea and Japan, but televisions are more popular with U.S., South American and Australian customers. Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia prefer tablets, while some parts of Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe use desktop and laptop computers the most.

So you have kids using tablets, teenagers using their gaming desktops... you don't have to buy a TV for each additional station. But you do for Cable, because you can't watch Cable on anything but a TV, or something more expensive: a PC which can take a cablecard.

Or you can stream many channels through the app, at least, Charter lets me.

And televisions + cable boxes are cheaper than the computers that you'll need to watch Netflix with separate people.

You can watch Netflix on a $40 tablet, or on the cellphone you already own. Thanks for playing, though:

People are more likely to watch Netflix on phones in India, South Korea and Japan, but televisions are more popular with U.S., South American and Australian customers. Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia prefer tablets, while some parts of Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe use desktop and laptop computers the most.

So you have kids using tablets, teenagers using their gaming desktops... you don't have to buy a TV for each additional station. But you do for Cable, because you can't watch Cable on anything but a TV, or something more expensive: a PC which can take a cablecard.

This article seems to point to Gizmodo that then points to the Facebook article which is the original source. Why not provide a direct link to the original Facebook ad https://www.facebook.com/busin... http://www.adweek.com/news/tec... Also, Gizmodo article does mention that the retailers wont be able to figure out individual "conversions" from ad to store visit, they will only be able to get an idea of percentage numbers from total ads seen to total visits. Then, Facebook’s Offline Conversions API will match in-store visit data (tracked using the phone’s location services) with Facebook advertising data. So, H&M won’t be able to see if you individually visited after its “store locator” sent you strong subliminal messages, but it will be able to match visits with the number of people who saw that ad in their feed and felt compelled to walk in.

It's okay when they are actually a militant group?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

http://www.adweek.com/prnewser...

http://media.breitbart.com/med...

For anyone still reading, all of those links show that a single man shouted a nazi reference to a crowd of people who shouted at him first. Seriously, read the links.

Once again I reiterate - just because your political ideology differs from someone else does not mean that they are Hitler and you are not.

It's okay when they are actually a militant group?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politic...

http://www.adweek.com/prnewser...

http://media.breitbart.com/med...

The can stop you taking photos a concerts

http://www.adweek.com/news/tec...

just have the correct set o pixels in your picture.

I can not find a reference to such a TV network/Boeing mission. Do you have any?

The media rights for Sochi were sold for $775M. Using the MIT estimate of $4.5B for the initial outpost that would still leave it only 17% funded. This mission cost is over five times the revenue from an Olympic Games.

The ULA CEO, Tory Bruno, has already offered to help SpaceX fix their problems with landing boosters. Everybody is playing nice! :)

There is a serious bipartisian proposal in Congress to reduce the tax deduction for advertising. Call your Congressional representative and tell them you support the elimination of tax deductions for advertising.

Because the US savings rate is so low (most people are spending almost all they earn), advertising does not increase demand. It just moves it around a bit. All advertising does is increase prices. There are many products, from movies to medications, where the advertising cost exceeds the cost of production. Let's put the brakes on advertising.

The House Ways and Means Committee is considering making advertising non-deductable as a business expense. That would take a bite out of Google.

There are good arguments for a tax on advertising. Most Americans are "spent out"; they're spending almost everything they earn. The US personal savings rate is near an all-time low of 2%. In that situation, advertising can't create new demand. It's just a war between advertisers. So that's a good place to tax.

That which most people are watching. Though it looks like TV is starting to loose people there too: http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/sports-fans-slowly-move-tv-internet-151329

The best bit is the response by a competing company, Bertolli, who have managed to personify pasta shapes: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758

But surely that's cheap, demeaning and insulting? It's just an opportunistic advertising plan devised to manipulate people's feelings for commercial advantage. Just as it's not a food company's place to attack people's lifestyles, it's not their place to support it either.

The best bit is the response by a competing company, Bertolli, who have managed to personify pasta shapes: http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758

Bertolli got an ad out pretty quickly:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758

Bertolli did one better:
http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/bertolli-makes-most-barilla-chairmans-anti-gay-comments-152758

I doubt its about cleaning up the comments section.

AOL, the parent company of HuffPo, is currently refocusing its business on driving ad sales.

In line with its ambitions to become a platform for live broadcasting and programming, the company also said that it had acquired Adap.tv, a video advertising company that allows purchases across the Internet and on television. The cost was $405 million.

“AOL is a leader in online video, and the combination of AOL and Adap.tv will create the leading video platform in the industry,” Tim Armstrong, AOL’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement. “The Adap.tv founders and team are on a mission to make advertising as easy as e-commerce, and the two companies together will aggressively pursue that vision.”

It's no secret that HuffPo is doing quite badly at selling ads.

When The Huffington Post’s weekly iPad magazine Huffington transitioned from a pay model to free last August, advertising was intended to sustain the tablet-native title, as consumers had resisted paying for it.

Almost a year postlaunch, it looks like advertisers are rejecting it, too.

A review of six recent issues found just one sponsor, for United Healthcare. Most issues feature a couple of promotions for HuffPost apps but no outside ads.

This part is the speculation. HuffPo has an audience, but can't sell ads. What is it that will bring advertisers to them? Targeted ads. But you can only target your ads if you know who is reading your page. How do you then convince your audience to register instead of browsing anonymously? By removing anonymous posting.

Plausible?

Anybody else think that this cloud business is taking a hit? Maybe they should try a different angle and tell us that NSA is good for us and is perfectly safe...

I have a degree in communications. I'm well aware of that purpose of advertising. However, as I understand it, those subconscious effects primarily change a person's impulse buying choice between commodity products (products for which there is little to no differentiation between vendors' goods). The more expensive the buy, the less likely people are to buy on impulse. The more differentiation between goods, the more likely people are to have a strong preference.

The problem is that although there's still a lot of impulse buying, it is mostly for stuff that would piss people off if they had to watch ads for it, like laundry detergent. These days, the ads people would choose to watch, if they were allowed to choose ads (but were forced to watch ads), would be ads for products that are actually interesting. Unfortunately, apart from informing the customer of what is out there on the market (which sites like Amazon can do much better), those ads are unlikely to sway their buying decision because of the instant availability of reviews and other information that provide much better differentiation than ads possibly could.

As the amount of available ad-free content grows, people get more annoyed by ads, and tolerate them less, choosing ad-free alternatives instead. This futher compounds the problem, both by reducing the number of people who see the ads and by associating a negative emotion (annoyance) with the product being advertised, which is likely to do more harm than good. And even if people don't get annoyed at the ads for commodity producers like Coke or Tide, they can't possibly provide enough advertising dollars to support all of the world's media needs.

Incidentally, the opinion that advertising's effetiveness is waning is supported by studies.

Now I will admit that there is still the possibility of replacing some of that ad revenue with money from product placement, but there aren't enough companies who could benefit from that to pay the bills long-term, IMO, and that doesn't work nearly as well for non-entertainment content (news, for example). And it certainly won't work as a means of paying the cost of developing software, maintaining websites, etc.

Unless, of course, this post was a paid product advertisement for Tide, in which case... well, call me a shill.

Then google should be cleaning up, they spend way more than apple on lobbying

http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/google-gets-erious-washington-139787

whereas it appears that apple isn't lobbying enough

http://habledash.com/the-nook/1612-apple-targeted-by-washington-lobbying

I think you missed this one It compares those who believe in climate change to terrorists.

And I guess YOU missed the meme the alarmists are propagating claiming that "client change deniers" are "condemning our children to greenhouse gas ovens."

It compares them to genocidal dictators.

I think you missed this one It compares those who believe in climate change to terrorists.

I think we're already there.

Most Americans surf while watching TV. For those that have "cut the cord" and stream or download all of their media it's only natural that they use a laptop or tablet to find new content and display it on the larger screen.

We cut the cord several years ago, and since streaming media offers few commercials we're not well informed when it comes to new movies or TV series. We'll often use our laptops or tablet (HP Touchpad) while watching TV and come across a movie or new series that looks interesting and start streaming it to the TV through a HTPC. It makes sense that eventually we won't need a HTPC and everything will be sent through the tablet.