On Friday, eMarketer cited my speech last month to the World Association of Newspaper’s Advertising conference and verified what I said:
- eMarketer’s own projections confirm fears that online classified ad spending does not measure up to other, more vibrant online ad spending formats such as rich media and sponsorships. Although total spending on online classified advertising will continue to grow for several years, it is likely to do no more than match the growth in total spending.
I’m glad eMarketer’s figures agree with Borrell Associates‘ figures, which I cited. eMarketer’s report also provided a useful chart (the Borrell research provides many others).
However, I should note that eMarketer also said that I:
- … pointed out a substantial discrepancy between online and offline classified advertising revenues. According to Mr. Crosbie, newspapers need to replace every lost reader with between 20 and 100 Web site readers to recover lost income.
No, I didn’t point out any substantial discrepancy between online and offline classified advertising revenues. Nor was my “between 20 and 100” comparison about classified advertising.
eMarketer’s confusion stems from it reading only news reports of my speech, not actually hearing speech or reading its text.
As a former and still occasional journalist, I know its best to check the source before reporting such things. I didn’t mind the Guardian, and others who actually heard the speech, focusing on one of many comparison that I made. But it is a bit gaulling to read second-hand reports which sound first-hand but were actually based upon the report or analyst just reading those other news stories.