[jancsika]

> Why would anyone pay to advertise in Economist when they can advertise to "people interested in economics, earning over 150k, last thought about cigarettes three weeks ago" etc.

Isn't the economist subscription-based?

Regardless, I'll bite: Isn't an important reason because someone wants to signal to the world that "everyone knows" their company is a sexy, category-defining beast?

E.g., there are Coca Cola machines that span both physical space (can be found in any region of the country) and time (everything from a machine built yesterday to half a century ago). When a human notices this their long-term memory probably goes, "Oh, Coca Cola has been and must still be one of the most important soft drinks," and-- just guessing here-- that increases the probability that their impulsive choice is for Coke in cases where thirst is involved.

If someone asked the question, "Why would Coca Cola want their soft drink ad in a rickety old gas station in an area of Northern Georgia that's still associated with the movie Deliverance?" they'd be confusing cause and effect.

Same logic applies here. I'd assume that advertising in [old media's digital presence] is an effect of an ad campaign that seeks to deliver an image of said ubuiquity.

[dcow]

Also the quality of integrated ads is far higher. I read integrated ads occasionally. I never read FB or Google ads.

[soheyl]

Not a FB fanboy here, but instagram ads have been the most relevant and interesting ones to me. I actually like seeing them pop up in my feed.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

That’s fairly standard “brand-building.” Ever notice how, when a new movie or album is about to drop, you start seeing tabloid stories, featuring the stars?

On the one hand, it can be argued that “people are interested, because of the movie.”

Except the stories usually start long before any “official” advertisements appear.

It’s about “building buzz,” and the American advertising industry (they refer to themselves as “communications”) is the best in the world, for this kind of thing.

The term “dog whistle” is used in a derogatory manner, but it’s actually a fairly apt metaphor. Dogs won’t respond to the whistle (which they hear just fine), unless they have been trained. "Building buzz" is training, so the paid ads will be much more effective. It works very well.

[WJW]

> is the best in the world, for this kind of thing.

I don't mean to be rude here, but how do you know? How could you even know? Did they tell you they're the best, by any chance?

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Not rude, but I'd be interested in knowing who's better at it.

I'm not a fan of the industry. Recognizing that someone is good at something, is not the same as approving.

[duckmysick]

> Isn't The Economist subscription-based?

They have ads in the printed version.