Recent Entries
- WatchMojo.com Welcomes 5Min.com and Sling Media as Video Distribution Partners
- Online Video for Old Media: Short Attention Span, Weaker Business Models
- Can Google Really See a Decline in Revenues?
- The Wisdom of Not Following The Crowd
- MSFT/Yahoo Round 2: What Will Probably Happen
Latest Business Videos
- Learn What's New In Microsoft Office Outlook
- Video Profile On Electronic Arts
- Tips for Dealing With Bad Bosses
- Bang & Olufsen Eletronics
- Zune: Digital Music Entertainment Platform
- Take Control Of Your Bills With Epost
- Discover Cool CSI Gadgets
- Speed Networking
- Latest Technologies For Bomb Control
- Profile on Quebecor Inc and Pierre Peladeau
Latest Videos
- Comedy Skit: The Lesbian Interview
- Travel Guide To Jordan
- Hollywood Best Kept Secret: Airbrush Makeup
- Rock ānā Roll Designs by Betsey Johnson
- The Best Laid Plans by Terry Fallis
- Interview With Zach Gill
- Birth of French People in North America
- M0851: Gorgeous Leather Goods
- Fashion Designer Elisa C-Rossow
- Travel To New Brunswick
StreetMojo Contests
-
Subscribe here
November 7th, 2006 at 8:19 am
You’ve made a classic error — which is very easy to do — in matching up numbers that have different defintions. Mr. Sterling, who is a brilliant analyst when it comes to local advertising, was referring to “local advertising,” which is indeed in the $100 billion range. This includes local newspapers, local radio, local Web sites, local TV, Direct Mail, billboards, etc. Borrell Associates was referring to “local paid search,” which is a (very small) subset of all local advertising.
The numbers being spouted out by research companies can be easily misinterpreted. However, it’s been my experience that, when you align the definitions and make sure you’re not comparing oranges to cumquats, they’re all pretty much within a few percentage points of each other.