Internet advertising continues to thrive while newspapers and TV continue their descent, according to Nielsen.

For the first 9 months of the year, Internet advertising grew by nearly 16 percent. Local and national newspapers lost 7.4 and 5.2 percent of their revenue, and TV networks dropped by 2.5 percent.

These numbers prove that for up-to-the minute news and commentary, websites and blogs are increasingly the place to go. Magazines, however, continue to do well, up by 7.7 percent, indicating that for feature articles and tabloid fare, nothing beats shiny paper in the hand.

Newspapers will always be important information gateways, but like the TV networks, they can no longer dictate ad rates or shape public opinion in the same way. The generation born in the 21st century won't view papers in the same way as we did, using them as a secondary, not primary news source.

Immediacy is key in our news consumption, while investigative reporting and features can wait for the highest quality.

Via MediaPost/

Publishers looking to elevate the CPMs off the floor of AdSense' pennies per thousand have an increasing number of alternatives in ad exchanges.

The latest entrant is ADSDAQ, part of ContextWeb. The company claims to differentiate itself by claiming to be a "premium" exchange, with higher CPMs than remnant exchanges such as Right Media or AdECN. ADSDAQ will manage ads so that the highest CPM ad will display, so existing ad relationships can continue.

ADSDAQ is looking for the middle ground above these players but below vertical ad networks that charge much higher CPMs but are more focused. ADSDAQ offers a self-service exchange where publishers set their prices, and ad networks buy directly. ADSDAQ opened its doors to publishers in October and immediately became the 23rd largest ad network.

AdSense is the bottom-feeder of ad networks, requiring incredible traffic to make even hundreds of dollars per month. Ad exchanges are an improvement, but they are still relatively unknown to most publishers.

Exchanges and networks are the path of least resistance but are in no way competitive with an in-house ad sales force.

Via: Adotas.

Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo have been fined a total of $31.5 million for accepting advertisements promoting illegal gambling.

For once, Microsoft gets to be first in something online as they will pay the most ($21 million) for their misdeeds.

Illegal gambling sites and advertising have been effectively scuttled after the BetOnSports.com ring was busted last year. These annoying and revenue generating ads have been replaced by ring tones and adult content as they easiest way for websites to make money through questionable practices.

Via ABC News.

A malware program is replacing Google ads with other advertising, according to PC World.

Google is losing ad revenue because of it. Publishers who use Google ads could lose their fractional income for readers who are infected. But since Google is also affected.

I bet they come up with a fix (the program attacks the hosts file on local computers) faster than they solve the click fraud problem.

Google is the new Microsoft, so it's not surprising that the company will be targeted by virus writers. In the PC space, if you didn't team up with MS in the 90s, your chance of success was about that of the Miami Dolphins today. The same is happening in marketing and advertising online now. So this is probably just the beginning of attacks on the company.

Viacom signed a half a billion dollar deal with Microsoft that delivers ads to the media company's websites while licensing video to MSN and for the Xbox platform.

The agreement makes sense because Microsoft isn't competing with Viacom through video search to the same degree as Google's YouTube, which has tussled with Viacom over copyright concerns. The deal also alleviates concerns about click fraud on Google's network, which reportedly ain't getting any better. You may see more publishers consider Yahoo or Microsoft because of click fraud. Google may be the biggest, but why overpay for clicks when there are alternatives?

Via:
Reuters

When shopping for a particular item, it's best to look (online) before you leap (to a retailer). I generally look online for items for my son (car seats, play pens, large toys) before heading out to Target or WalMart to make sure that what I want is in stock and to get a gauge of what I'll have to pay. If I can't find it in a store at a competitive price, then I may buy it online.

Greg Sterling writes about his similar experience, and how this mode of shopping can make it difficult for retailers to track web leads. The message here - having a strong web presence with an easily searched (and SEO optimized) catalog is a cost of doing business that can't be accurately tracked by your e-commerce sales. You won't track everything, so assume that the value of sales is higher than your shopping carts.

A new GPS box integrates Yahoo Search to simplify your trek to retailers that were based on web searched. It will take considerable bargain hunting to pay off the $600 Dash Express, but the WiFi gadget also is a fully functioning navigation system as well. Expect more GPS devices to enhance their integration with local search.

Digg is trying to avoid slipping traffic by adding new features as it reportedly gears up for a sale.

According to Venture Beat Digg has hired venture firm Allen & Company to help find a buyer willing to pay $300 or more for the company.

This comes on the heels of more stories of "bury brigades" censoring stories that the company doesn't want to promote by burying them.

On the other hand, Digg is getting more user friendly with tools for video, a more seemless process for digging stories, and a new service for tracking the presidential election.

Methinks that Adelson, Rose, et al, have realized that the site has gotten about as big as it will get, and that the bubble on Web 2.0 is moments away from bursting. Selling now would be a smart move as $300 million is a nice retirement package for all involved.

So far the TV boxes are holding their turf against upstart Internet devices, but advertising will ultimately decide the winners.

Apple TV, Akimba and others haven't succeeded because of a dearth of content and high prices for purchases. )It will be interesting to see if Apple try and resuscitate its flailing box at the upcoming Macworld or CES.)

"The high cost of these devices, their reliance on the home network, the need for consumer self-installation, and the scarcity of content have all contributed to their lack of commercial success," says ABI Research research director Michael Wolf. “This market will continue to be challenged by traditional set-top boxes, which are incorporating more VOD and public Internet delivery features, and by the emergence of VOD services on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, and those such as the TiVo/Amazon Unbox offering."

According to ABI Research's Paulhwa Lee, set-top box companies are adding features, such as increased hard-disk space, DVD players, DVD burners, and home-audio solutions, which will better align STB functionality with consumer demands.

Services like Vudu have more of a chance, but incorporating a wider variety of web video that is ad-supported is the best shot that 'net machines have. Someone needs to develop the technology to automatically find and "TiVo" the best of the web content that's available and monetize it through advertising. Google and YouTube come to mind as the most likely company that have the chops to make it happen. The writer's strike could be the best thing that could happen to the Internet-to-TV devices as people will spend more time online once the repeats hit in January.

Google is beta testing a Wikipedia competitor with a commercial twist that might doom it to failure.

Wikipedia is successful because it is continually being revised and limits each "definition" to a single entry based on consensus.

Google will allow many entries for the same thing and will share the ad revenue with contributors. While this sounds noble, it will lead to an outbreak of self-promotional content spam generated solely to generate revenue without regard for quality. Google is right to share revenue, but there should be strict editorial controls to separate the contributions of academics and experts from the charlatans who will misinform for their own benefit. This could quickly spin out of control.

There is room for Wikipedia competitors, but allowing many entries will be extremely confusing to readers. Google will have to dedicate significant editorial resources to filter out the spam from useful information. The "Knol" name has got to go too.

Via Network World.

Social networks will nearly double their online ad revenue next year according to eMarketer. The co-kings of kaching, MySpace and Facebook will suck up 70 percent of the estimated $2.2 billion to spent on social sites, according to the survey.

This is an industry that jumped straight to consolidation -- there wasn't the usual 3 years of weeding out the also-rans as MySpace-Facebook jumped in and quickly set the rules.

I found this line from the Mediapost coverage surprising in its editorial tone, referring to the estimated $1.6 billion that MySpace and Facebook will largely share in the U.S.:

That's still a fraction of overall U.S. online advertising, which eMarketer estimates will hit $21.4 billion this year.

Only a fraction? Social nets will represent 7.5 percent of U.S. ad dollars next year, after just a few years of existence. That's very impressive considering we're talking about basically 2 websites out of the universe of millions of revenue generating sites.

Social nets will never seem as strong as they are today as growth will quickly slow down and social networking features are absorbed by other websites and corporate versions will link large companies or industries across the globe. Facebook will eventually settle into a bout a $2-3 billion company, not the $15 billion that Microsoft estimated.