Interesting analogy. Obviously some "real estate" is more valuable than others, but I wonder how one differentiates the effectiveness of the "real estate?" Using your examples, Twitter is used extensively, but their advertising has never been effective. One only has to see how their ads interrupt the flow of news, and are not remotely compelling to click on, that you can extrapolate their ineffectiveness to the advertiser (I've often thought that intersting comparison for Twitter is the old AM radio in the US. Tons of ads during the key drive times literally drove listeners to the FM stations). Compare that to Instagram or Tik Tok or Pinterest, and the ads seem more native and part of the flow and ultimately effective.
Thank you Russell for sharing your thoughts over the years, there is a lot of value in it.
Interesting analogy. Obviously some "real estate" is more valuable than others, but I wonder how one differentiates the effectiveness of the "real estate?" Using your examples, Twitter is used extensively, but their advertising has never been effective. One only has to see how their ads interrupt the flow of news, and are not remotely compelling to click on, that you can extrapolate their ineffectiveness to the advertiser (I've often thought that intersting comparison for Twitter is the old AM radio in the US. Tons of ads during the key drive times literally drove listeners to the FM stations). Compare that to Instagram or Tik Tok or Pinterest, and the ads seem more native and part of the flow and ultimately effective.