No they don't. They have limited attention, but their space is, for all intents and purposes, infinite. Networks have 24 hours of programming, Google has millions of page views, application users, etc.
But, even if something gets very small amounts of attention, it is still incredibly cheap to serve ads (because that's all automated) and, as a result, make money. The user experience only has to be good enough to keep enough people using it that you break even on the infrastructure.
The world of online advertising has not been rewarding to those that provide not very popular services cheaply. This has certainly never been the case for Google. The only services doing well from advertising on a large scaleare the very popular ones
This thread is awful. Every comment is completely on its own. No context. I say 'Google has the equivalent of online space and of course I have to prove that to be true in every possible context.
It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging.
If you are continuing the argument of the GGparent comment as you seem to be, you are arguing that TV is completely different from web because TV shows need to meet a certain threshold to stay on air. This is why TV people care about ratings/customer satisfaction.
It is the earlier post by zedshaw that made a general claim that when the provider gets paid by an advertiser, a user cannot count on being looked after (more then in direct payments). I gave an example of industry that for decades has been proving this statement wrong. I get pounced, red herrings swinging.
In the eyes of many, myself included, the example of TV proves your point wrong. TV content producers seem to be motivated and geared to produce mindless dreck for the LCD viewer. Hits happen occasionally and unpredictably, so that's not actually what they try to do. Excellent reviews from critics doesn't mean you can charge advertisers more. Mediocrity is the rule of the day.
But, even if something gets very small amounts of attention, it is still incredibly cheap to serve ads (because that's all automated) and, as a result, make money. The user experience only has to be good enough to keep enough people using it that you break even on the infrastructure.