El Reg (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/30/google_itv1_q3_ad_revenue/) is reporting that Google overtook ITV in advertising revenues in Q3 this year.
"According to analysis carried out by The Times, Google pulled in total revenues of £327m compared with an estimated £317m for all of ITV1's output during the same period between July and September 2007."
Makes you think, doesn't it...
However, with the world cup and F1 in October, it wouldn't surprise me to see ITV take the lead again :)
Google in another step towards world domination. :out:
I just hadn't realised how much revenue there is in online ads. As I've said before, I just mentally filter them straight off the page. Clearly, others do not.
Oh I never see them either, and I do wonder why some people go to the trouble of using ad-blockers and the like. I think I would find blank spaces or place holders more irritating than the ads themselves.
I use Kasperskys built in ad blocker simply because the page loads faster without the ads and I detest advertising on the net, hate it to the core, I really really detest it, if I could do the same for TV advertising I would as well >:D.
I use Sky+. The effect is close enough. :)
Same ;) how I love the FF button, but it would still be nice not to see one ad especially Christmas ones in September >:D
If Sky would risk doing an auto ad-skip button, Gary, it would make the box perfect - well, almost. :)
Now that's a great idea, but somehow I fear the idea of consumers not realising that certain cereals make your bowl full of fun, therefore leading to a sad and lonely breakfast time is not what they want >:D
Sadly, you're right - Sky can't afford to offend the advertisers (which is, I believe, why they have patented an ad-skip technology).
Sadly advertising is will always going be with us, and probably one day like in Minority Report where its targeted at you personally as you walk around based on your know preferences :(
That could produce some interesting material. >:D
I would never dare to go out >:D ah but I don't anyway so its OK ;)
Going back a few posts, surely a good reason for blocking adds is increased security? Wasn't it Digital Spy who had a problem with virus laden ads recently?
Yes, it was. NOD did its job well though.
Quote from: Lance on Oct 31, 2007, 18:09:12
Going back a few posts, surely a good reason for blocking adds is increased security? Wasn't it Digital Spy who had a problem with virus laden ads recently?
I agree with that, that's another reason I use an ad blocker Lance, to avoid poison banner ads as well as the page loading times etc :)