Guy Phillipson, chief executive of the IAB, said: “Internet advertising has beaten all expectations to achieve growth in the most challenging market conditions.”

TV revenues fell 16.1%, according to the figures, meaning it has lost its status as the medium with the biggest market share to the one that had the smallest share only six years ago.

Online now has a 23.5% market share compared to TV’s 21.9%.

PricewaterhouseCoopers online advertising expert Eva Berg-Winters said “Perhaps surprisingly, a slowing economy has accelerated the migration to digital technology and hence the continuing shift from more traditional forms of advertising to online, which promises return on investment and measurability in a period of instability. The only certainty is that this transgression demands fundamental structural change of business models across all industries.”

The marketing director Lindsey Clay of Thinkbox, a UK commercial TV marketing body is one of those who doesn’t want to see their business model change.

The original articles here:

Internet outstrips TV but total ad spend plummets 17%

Online advertising spend ’surpasses TV’

Alan Moore, a mobile and engagement marketing expert is currently writing a new book, “No Straight Lines”. I’ve been privileged to have a read of one his drafts. There were a number of points he raised in his writing that I found very topical with regards to recent media stories.

“In Audience Atomization Overcome Rosen writes In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. And now that authority is eroding.

This ability to connect, to go round, over, under and through what were for years barriers to information are the means by which we challenge the authority of mainstream media.”

But the push is on to stop this, as Opennet.net sets out to show by listing all of the available internet filtering techniques and which countries are currently using them. It would appear the trend is on the rise.

Australia is currently the test case, and all other “democratic” Western countries are watching with interest. Governments have a tendency to copy each others legislation, especially if one sets a precedent.

…election rigging? No, finding out about it.

The above CensorDyne advert from GetUp!, a non-partisan lobby group, was created with the intent that it would be aired where possible in Australia to try to get their message across to Australian legislators. One of the aims of the CensorDyne campaign was to have the advertisement aired on every Qantas flight. However this week Qantas refused to run the CensorDyne ad claiming they have a policy of not airing political material. However this response has been called into doubt as the airline has perviously air political satire. But most telling of all, David Epstein, a Qantas executive with close links to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has dismissed suggestions that he personally barred an anti-internet censorship advertisement from airing on flights to Canberra.

These same “democratic” governments who have long been critical of the likes of Chinese Net censorship, are the very same governments who are looking at the very same technology for their own use, and in some instances, purchasing that same technology (software).

It is true what you say. This new networked world is very empowering, and that is precisely what the “establishment” do not want – a very public forum of discussion, debate, criticism, parody and outing is not welcome.

And that establishment is the corporates who pull the strings of government.

“Funny that, and of course we had the whole ‘cash for questions’ issue in the UK, and then recently four Lords again using their influence, so it is claimed, to change legislation to the benefit of companies in exchange for large amounts of cash.”

What we face is similar to the great American land rush of the 1800’s. People streamed Westwards to claim their bit of turf, at the expense of those already there (digital natives) and set up their own little “utopias”, hence the Wild West. And indeed many times I have read the internet equated with this.

But it was not too long before “authority” and regulation caught up with everyone, and that being because big business interests moved in – Ranchers, Railroads, Mining.

Question is, will WE manage to establish some sort of Digital Constitution, or Bill of Rights to our own data before we are filtered or locked out?

Or rather the question is, will WE take the time to properly inform and educate ourselves about this technology that we use?

While perhaps we despise malware authors and others out to steal our bank account details, defraud us and cause general selfish havoc, and provide the “establishment” further excuses to lock the Net (mobile or static), these malicious persons are actually forcing people not to take their data for granted.

But there remains that question. Will people be lazy, and not take personal responsibility and run to the open arms of the “establishment” for protection from the internet nasties, or will make the effort to become better educated?

What is the internet doing to our brains? by Nicholas Carr.