Quote:
Originally Posted by jayeff
Which is likely the perspective, but it is a very limited one.
The direct cost of losing a specific advertiser is anywhere from zero to the whole of his spending: it depends entirely on the demand for space. But the real cost doesn't begin and end with direct revenue. If the presence of a particular advertiser in some way enhances your own business interests, losing them could cost much more. And vice versa.
If I recall correctly from an article I read a few weeks ago, Playboy's online revenue was around $5 million a month during the first quarter of this year. If they were being targeted by Zango customers, then by the most optimistic forecasts of 1/2% penetration, that alone might be costing them $25K per month. The lost revenue due to their content being spread around torrent sites has to be huge and many times greater than any benefit from the exposure (after all, who hasn't already heard of Playboy?). Etc.
It is remotely possible that an enterprise the size of Playboy Online isn't affected by the gray and black areas of online porn. But it is surely more likely that the cost is far in excess of anything they earn from any one advertiser.
|
The last numbers I saw (a year old) suggested that upwards to 50% of all end users had some sort of spyware on their systems.
Zango has claimed upwards to 200,000 installs per day - 73,000,000 installs per year. I think that the 1/2% penetration is just to polite a number.
However, this is the key thing: The sponsors don't lose a cent as a global overall total. The money moves, but the surfers buy at the same rate. The difference is who gets paid and how much it costs to acquire the sales. If a program isn't buying Zango traffic, then yes they are likely losing sales - but in the big scheme of things, the industry is the same size, just different people make the money.
The ones getting the biggest fucking over is the affiliates, but for the most part that just isn't important to many of the programs.