There’s a certain logic to the concept of spending the most ad dollars in places where people spend the most time. But then, bus shelter ads are effective. People don’t spend a lot of time there, but when they are there, they’re bored and probably more likely to examine the ad than an ad on a flipping magazine page.
Flurry took a look at the Time vs Dollars ratio and here’s what they found:
TV is looking nice and even. Web dollars are catching up to time spent and Radio is balancing out. But look at print and mobile. Talk about out of whack.
It’s interesting, because mobile is slowly becoming print’s replacement. Instead of buying the Wall Street Journal, people read it on their iPad. Instead of reading the TV Guide magazine, they let their smartphones remind them when their favorite shows are on.
But look at the dollar discrepancy!
Mobile, I get. The technology is growing and changing faster than we can keep up, so I’m not surprised that ad dollars are lagging. But why are we still dumping all that money into print? Someone must be making money here or it wouldn’t still be riding that high.
My guess would be advertisers in women’s magazines. From Cover Girl make-up ads in Glamour to Swiffer dusters in Good Housekeeping, these are tried and true and I suspect they’re still going strong.
But the same women who buy those magazines are also pumping up the eCPMs (effective cost per mille /thousands) for mobile ads. Flurry found that women, aged 25-34 bring in an average eCPM of $13, well above the male average of $8.
They also found higher eCPMs from people who earned between $60,000 and $100,000 a year.
Let’s summarize, well-educated, young, upper middle class women are ready and willing to buy things via their mobile device. And yet, mobile is claiming only 1% of the total media ad spend.
The time for excuses is over, my friends. Mobile isn’t a maybe, it’s the future of marketing.