<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Internet is Bigger than Cable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inluminent.com/2004/02/24/the-internet-is-bigger-than-cable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inluminent.com/2004/02/24/the-internet-is-bigger-than-cable/</link>
	<description>my comments on business, marketing, advertising, email, CAN-SPAM, selling as a profession, photography, computers and other stuff...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:44:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://inluminent.com/2004/02/24/the-internet-is-bigger-than-cable/comment-page-1/#comment-1581</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inluminent.com/?p=869#comment-1581</guid>
		<description>Bogus argument. 15 percent of homes have satellite TV. Add it in and it&#039;s 80 percent penetration vs. 68 percent. It&#039;s a nice story, but advertisers tend not to advertise on &quot;cable,&quot; but on TV channels... that are carried on both cable and satellite.



Someone read a bad metric, didn&#039;t use any common sense, and made a stupid extrapolation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bogus argument. 15 percent of homes have satellite TV. Add it in and it&#8217;s 80 percent penetration vs. 68 percent. It&#8217;s a nice story, but advertisers tend not to advertise on &#8220;cable,&#8221; but on TV channels&#8230; that are carried on both cable and satellite.</p>
<p>Someone read a bad metric, didn&#8217;t use any common sense, and made a stupid extrapolation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://inluminent.com/2004/02/24/the-internet-is-bigger-than-cable/comment-page-1/#comment-1582</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inluminent.com/?p=869#comment-1582</guid>
		<description>Jason... 



Yes, but that 68% doesn&#039;t include all of the people that surf the web from the office (which I&#039;m doing right now).  Most people don&#039;t watch any TV between 8am and 5pm ... at least not while they&#039;re in the office.  I think the fact that the internet is in so many homes is an important fact... I wonder if we compared how many offices the internet is in to how many offices cable is in if that&#039;s help shed some light on the real reach of the internet as a whole?



I agree, just because the internet is available to people doesn&#039;t mean that a lot more money will flow into the advertising revenues of most media companies, mainly because it&#039;s sooo hard to aggregate all of that &#039;internet&#039; traffic into a few sellable channels... which is what&#039;ll be required to get the big dollar advertisers using it to a large degree.



They want &#039;reach and frequency&#039; and the internet as a whole still doesn&#039;t deliver that, unless people buy a whole lot of sites... and that&#039;s still not happening because the dollars are still all stuck in other broadcast media...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason&#8230; </p>
<p>Yes, but that 68% doesn&#8217;t include all of the people that surf the web from the office (which I&#8217;m doing right now).  Most people don&#8217;t watch any TV between 8am and 5pm &#8230; at least not while they&#8217;re in the office.  I think the fact that the internet is in so many homes is an important fact&#8230; I wonder if we compared how many offices the internet is in to how many offices cable is in if that&#8217;s help shed some light on the real reach of the internet as a whole?</p>
<p>I agree, just because the internet is available to people doesn&#8217;t mean that a lot more money will flow into the advertising revenues of most media companies, mainly because it&#8217;s sooo hard to aggregate all of that &#8216;internet&#8217; traffic into a few sellable channels&#8230; which is what&#8217;ll be required to get the big dollar advertisers using it to a large degree.</p>
<p>They want &#8216;reach and frequency&#8217; and the internet as a whole still doesn&#8217;t deliver that, unless people buy a whole lot of sites&#8230; and that&#8217;s still not happening because the dollars are still all stuck in other broadcast media&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
