Daily Archives: October 12, 2007

Posted on by
Reply

Paid Content has a great article about online advertising and how the concentration of online advertising in the hands of so few websites is becoming a problem. 

They note this remarkable stat from Zenith regarding distribution of online ad revenue:

So the big problem is not that ad spending is drying up, it’s that the bulk is concentrated in a few sites. Citing the IAB, Reuters points out that the top 50 websites in the U.S. took in more than 90 percent of the revenue from online ads in H107, while the top 10 sites sucked up 70 percent of internet revs for the same period. 

They also quote Zenith as suggesting that even as late as 2009 online advertising will remain a fraction –  under 10% – of the total global ad spend of some 495 billion.     I’m skeptical of that estimate – very skeptical – because online ROIs remain vastly superior to offline, though this advantage is not as obvious as it should be because so much of the spend is done in foolish “old media” ways with large, expensive, poorly targeted campaigns.  As PPC campaign sophistication improves, people continue to move online, video continues to move online, and advertisers increasingly continue to insist on positive ROI we should see online buys approach offline – I’d wildly guess there will be online / offline ad parity by 2015, though interactive TV and video clip advertising may blur the distinction between a TV ad and an online ad.

New telescope will help with search for ET

Posted on by
Reply

Thanks to some megabucks from Microsoft founder Paul Allen there’s a new telescope on the block and it will soon be bigger and better at spotting aliens than anything to date.   Here is the BBC story.

I would argue that alien life is almost a certainty, but *finding it* is not at all certain since the distances to other systems are so great that even if there is intelligent life on planets of our “next door neighbor” star, Proxima Centauri, and even if they are beaming some TV shows or data in our direction, it would take about 4.5 years for us to get the signal and another 4.5 to send one back.   Now THAT is lag time in a conversation.   

Think how hard it would be to buy and sell stuff with alien dudes that were, say, 50 light years distant.  The ad would have to read “If you act right NOW on our special offer, you might get it just before you DIE of old age.  Only $9.95 and supplies are limited”.

But if the new scope finds more life perhaps they will have invented technologies we can only dream of, or more likely and hopefully they’ll have intelligence extending capabilities that we could copy.    Kurzweil’s singularity promises immortality, but it’s best not to hold your breath on that one quite yet.

Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and IPCC

Posted on by

Congratulations – sort of – to Al Gore and the IPCC for the Nobel Peace Prize.   I’m somewhat confused because it seems to me their efforts would not fall under the general category of promoting “Peace”.    AP story about Al Gore and IPCC Peace Prize is here.  More importantly people should be concerned that our new global focus on very expensive and problematic climate change science will distract us from more pressing problems.   Here’s what I just wrote to the Nobel Prize Committee – their website even promises I’ll get a response. 

As much as I respect Al Gore and the IPCC I worry that our new global focus on Climate Change will distract us from the more pressing problems of poverty, health, and violent conflict.   Was this possibility considered by the awards committee?

Climate change is the best current example of how humans process information, problems, and solutions in irrational ways.    Generally people note that global warming is happening (true) and that warming is likely the result of human activity (probably true – IPCC concludes over 90% likely).    It’s also reasonable to assume that warming will lead to mostly undesirable changes.   HOWEVER, it does not follow from these truths that we should make Global Warming the top priority.  In fact due to the expense and difficulties involved a clear mind will conclude that we should implement cheap changes but forego the expensive changes in favor of devoting those resources to *current* catastrophic global conditions – generally these relate to poverty and health conditions in the developing world, but would also probably include work to alleviate the appalling conditions found in many American and European big city neighborhoods.

Below is a link to a video of Bjorn Lomborg at TED Conference on Global Solution Priorities.   In my opinion he’s the clearest thinker out there – a contrast to people who are so poisoned by “political thinking” and “advocacy thinking” that they can’t see the facts from their causes.    I think a good test of whether you are clear thinking about a topic is to make the opposition case effectively enough that people can’t tell your bias.    Most topics have complex sets of facts and no easy answers – everybody should keep that in mind.   
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

Hey – Al Gore’s office looks a lot like mine, but with bigger monitors.    I like him, but don’t agree with him that GW is the big problem facing us.

There’s a LOT MORE about this over at Max’s blog.