Advertising Revenue Quotes

The Business' has been an editorial success, with a core audience that loves it. But commercially it has never been a success as a newspaper. It just gets crowded out on a Sunday.

We're not doing brain surgery. We're not saving lives... Even if you're doing Shakespeare, it's still entertainment. We're just entertaining people. We're just doing the stuff that comes on in between the ads.

Television is a service, but it's also a business.

It's no accident that Julia Child appeared on public television - or educational television, as it used to be called. On a commercial network, a program that actually inspired viewers to get off the couch and spend an hour cooking a meal would be a commercial disaster, for it would mean they were turning off the television to do something else.

I make more than a handsome living doing voices for commercials; I hear myself all day on the tube.

The media love coarse debate because coarse debate drives ratings and ratings generate profits. Unless the TV producer happens to be William Shakespeare, an argument is more interesting than a soliloquy - and there will never be a shortage of people willing to argue on TV.

You could argue that as web audiences have grown larger and advertisers have demanded scale, the web has dumbed down - like the mainstream media we so mocked.

Obviously you have to make a profit to put out a newspaper. I'm not an idiot. But when the margins are in excess of 25 per cent you're talking about greed.

I don't have many expenses as a college student (mostly food) so I'm able to put advertising revenue right back into the production of new videos.

Online advertising works, although it lands especially on search engines like Google and Yahoo. They achieve much higher revenues online than the websites of publishing companies.

Everybody in the Olympics is paid. Lindsay Vonn is going to make a million dollars whether she skis or not.

It's a growing trend. Viewers are our customers, but so are advertisers. And advertisers want different ways to reach our viewers.

To me, the print business model is so simple, where readers pay a dollar for all the content within, and that supports the enterprise.

I love the way the American trade magazines never give anybody a bad review because they're afraid the advertising will be taken out. It's so hysterical.

It's definitely the highest rated pre-school show on Cable. It's difficult to mix markets that way in terms of ratings. It's hard to tell, you know, where channel 12, or Public Television, is.

If a newspaper is to be of real service to the public, it must have a big circulation: first, because its news and its comments must reach the largest possible number of people; second, because circulation means advertising, and advertising means money, and money means independence.

Local television is a slightly different story. It is under much more pressure in the same way that all local businesses are, whether that's a local newspaper, local radio or local television. But I think television in the aggregate is actually in very good shape.

The BBC is a very confident broadcasting organisation and it needs brands like 'Top of the Pops' and 'Top Gear.'

Free is not going to go away. Either the advertising model will still work, or there will still be literally hundreds of millions of people who want to put their information on the Net and want people to have access to it.

The challenges are different to different kinds of magazines. News magazines, magazines that have high frequency and news, are going to be challenged, heavily challenged, not just by the Internet but by the whole 24-hour news cycle which has just been getting enhanced.

The advertising market in China is big and is still growing at a considerable pace. While online video is emerging as a mainstream advertising solution, it still represents a relatively small portion of advertising budget in China.

I don't want to kill ads. I think advertising is great, and I'm very aware that there's multiple revenue streams in television, subscription and advertising. But I also don't want to put my head in the sand, and I think the world is changing.

Too many newspaper advocates utterly and completely fail to understand this; the truth is that newspapers made money in the past not by providing societal value, but by having quasi-monopolistic control of print advertising in their geographic area; the societal value was a bonus. Thus, when Chavern complains that “today’s internet distribution systems distort the flow of economic value derived from good reporting”, he is in fact conflating societal value with economic value; the latter does not exist and has never existed. This failure to understand the past leads to a misdiagnosis of the present: Google and Facebook are not profitable because they took newspapers’ reporting, they are profitable because they took their advertising.

Anybody who comes along and wants to sell a wrestling show, guess who you are not gonna sell it to? You are not going to sell it to FOX and any of its affiliates, and, oh, by the way, you are not going to sell it to NBC Universal or any of its affiliates.

I lost a lot of money with sponsors.