????美國(guó)最大風(fēng)投公司凱鵬華盈（KPCB）的分析師瑪麗?米克爾每年都會(huì)發(fā)布年度報(bào)告《互聯(lián)網(wǎng)趨勢(shì)報(bào)告》，內(nèi)容都頗為有趣。報(bào)告中的觀點(diǎn)倒不見得多么出人意表，也沒有太大轟動(dòng)性，但當(dāng)中濃縮整合了科技業(yè)與傳媒業(yè)的現(xiàn)狀，讀來得益匪淺。例如，她今年的報(bào)告中有一幅圖表，就有可能讓全球紙媒坐立不安。

????圖表以百分比形式顯示了美國(guó)成年人花在紙媒、廣播、電視等不同媒體上的時(shí)間分布，以及相應(yīng)媒體獲得的廣告投放，并將二者進(jìn)行了對(duì)比。在紙媒行業(yè)，這張圖表顯示出一個(gè)巨大的鴻溝：其受關(guān)注度比其獲得的廣告投放實(shí)際上要低14個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。

????It’s always fun when Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers analyst Mary Meeker comes out with her annual “State of the Internet” slide deck. There often isn’t all that much that is shocking or surprising about her conclusions, but the slideshow condenses and aggregates information about the state of affairs in tech and media in a very useful way. For example, she has one chart that likely strikes terror (or at least should strike terror) into the heart of print publishers everywhere.

????The chart shows the percentage of time that U.S. adults spend on various forms of media—print, radio, television, etc.—compared to the amount of advertising spending that is devoted to that medium. And when it comes to print, the slide shows a yawning gap between the amount of attention devoted to that medium and the amount of advertising money that gets spent on it: a gap of 14 percentage points, in fact.

????哈佛大學(xué)尼曼新聞實(shí)驗(yàn)室主管喬舒亞?本頓指出，米克爾每年的報(bào)告中都包含這一對(duì)比圖。事實(shí)上，就受關(guān)注度和廣告投放之間的懸殊來說，今年的情況有所好轉(zhuǎn)：2011年同類對(duì)比顯示，紙媒獲得了25%的廣告投放，但只有7%的受關(guān)注度，相差18個(gè)百分點(diǎn)。雖然差距有所縮小，但紙媒的這一數(shù)據(jù)鴻溝仍比其他媒體都要大——移動(dòng)媒體例外，作為一種相對(duì)較新的媒體類別，它的差值也很大，但和紙媒背道而馳：其受關(guān)注度遠(yuǎn)超廣告投放量。

????當(dāng)然，不能僅僅因?yàn)榧埫降氖荜P(guān)注度在減少，就認(rèn)定其廣告投放必然下滑。其中牽涉許多復(fù)雜的因素，比如許多以紙媒業(yè)務(wù)為主的媒體集團(tuán)都與品牌達(dá)成協(xié)議，將平面與線上廣告打包出售。再者也可以說，紙媒更適合某些以“打造品牌”為目標(biāo)的廣告，至少許多廣告代理商和品牌方仍然認(rèn)同這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)。

????即便如此，紙媒的受關(guān)注度與廣告投放量之間的巨大差距也幾乎難以為繼。媒體理論家克萊?舍基認(rèn)為，紙媒廣告可能遭遇第二次“斷崖式下跌”。屆時(shí)，紙媒的廣告到達(dá)率將跌破某一值點(diǎn)，廣告公司和品牌會(huì)認(rèn)定紙媒不再具有投放價(jià)值。即使退一萬(wàn)步，媒體也應(yīng)該銘記，糾偏的過程不可能總是一帆風(fēng)順。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

????譯者：Pessy

????審校：夏林

????As Josh Benton points out at the Nieman Journalism Lab, this slide shows up every year in Meeker’s presentation. The latest version is actually somewhat better in terms of the gap between attention and spending: in the 2011 version, print got 25% of the spending and just 7% of the attention, for a gap of 18 percentage points. Now the gap has shrunk, but it continues to be larger than any other media with the exception of mobile, which is a relatively new category (and its gap is in the other direction).

????Just because print gets a smaller amount of attention doesn’t necessarily mean that the proportion of ad spending should be identical, of course. There are plenty ofcomplicating factors—including the fact that many print-based media outlets offer deals to brands that tie sales of online ads to the print version. Print is also arguably better for some forms of “brand building” advertising, or at least a number of advertising agencies and brands continue to believe this.

????But that said, the likelihood of that gap remaining where it is seems vanishingly small. And as media theorist Clay Shirky has argued, there could even be a second “cliff”coming for advertising sales, in which print reach drops below a certain point and ad agencies and brands suddenly decide it is no longer worth it. If nothing else, media entities should remember that corrections don’t always happen in nice smooth curves.