You assumption is solely dependent on the notion that online ads have the same or higher recall rates as conventional media, and that TV and radio maintain their (declining) recall rates.

There's a still-yet-to-be discovered medium (I'm guessing, obviously) that will have the highest recall rate. Probably something along the line of the (I'm going to date myself here) "Blip-vert" from Max Headroom.

 

You should factor in young(er) kids afford the cheaper hondas so they are more common on HT.com where as the S2000 is not too cheap (yet).

And for the record I've seen worse like for example E46fanatics.com

 

Recall rates are branding metric. While branding has its place in the online world, it is not the be-all-end-all determinant of ad spend. Online is an ROI play and no traditional medium in the world can provide the same kind if instant, granular feedback that online can.

This is why the shift has already happened and as more people turn to online for their media consumption I believe recall rates will come in line with current traditional media. All speculation of course, but my assumptions are rooted in current data.

 

In instances where the product can be acquired in a strict online channel, you may be on to something, but branding influences the purchasing decision, which is still probably the holy grail, online or otherwise.

In other words, if I want dishwashing detergent, and I'm grocery shopping online, you might be on to something, but if I'm at the store, having Google Search directing me to habitualdishwashers.org/forum isn't going to necessarily turn over dime one, especially versus the pervasive branding that goes on via more passive media.

 

I'm not trying to discount the importance of branding. It is a very important part of advertising, even online. What I am saying is that online offers a more measurable approach to branding and I believe companies will more likely to come online because of that.

Look at it this way. You can pay 1 million for a 1 minute spot on ESPN and have to rely on Neilsen data, surveys and brand lift measures to determine how effective that ad was and what you got for your money. Online, you can get in front of that same demographic with pre-roll ads on ESPN clips for much less money and you will be able to track down to the user who saw your ad and what action they took.

I believe that once critical mass is reached in online media that the benefits will outweigh those of traditional media and the ad dollars will follow the crowds already online.

 

You looked at Zig, when I was talking about Zag. . .

I can't argue with the notion of "Critical Mass" online, but when is that happening? If it's happens at the point where the can of beans I'm looking at in the grocery store has it's own IPv6 address, then yes, you're right. But that's still a ways off.

However, your (present-day) assumption that it's cheap is based on Google's/Youtube's (as it's become a defacto pricing model) current pricing models, which, as already discussed, are revenue-short. I'm saying they're already short because they don't affect the point of purchase decision.

The way around this, is to cinch up, cull, scan, etc. the content for "known revenue-generating material."

I won't go so far as to say you're patently wrong, but you're vague enough to simply bank on technology that'll have probably evolved twice over by the time Google finds a way to make money on RickRolling.

Strangely, I'd say the best I've seen so far for video is Hulu. . . which behaves like a networked. . . TV. . .

Chicken/Egg scenario. . . but I'm calling your egg hatched, and it's starting to look like a lizard.