> "99% of my [advertising] budget is spent on zero value,"
This has always been true for advertising. The difference is that before the internet there were zero methods for the advertising client to directly recognize this fact.
I believe that statement is wrong. 99% of advertising might not be worth the money spent, but it wasn't zero value. (if you spend $1 to generated $.50 that is advertising at a loss, but a much smaller loss than advertising with zero return). Advertising needs to figure out how to generate positive value.
The problem is there is two types of ad. The first is "buy this now", if the user clicks and buys it was a success, but that doesn't mean a failure to click is a failure because there is a second type of ad that I believe is more important: awareness. You advertise so that people know you exist - that way when they realize their need for your product you come to mine. I think the pay per click model that the web advertising has settled on is wrong because it doesn't well account for ads that you don't want clicked.
There is a reason McDonald's advertises on every radio and tv station they can every few minutes: it works. Some of those ads go to people who will never eat at McDonald's and if they could figure out how to save money by not advertising to those people it would be worth it. Overall though the return on those adds it large.
This has always been true for advertising. The difference is that before the internet there were zero methods for the advertising client to directly recognize this fact.