Sounds more like tax burden than multiplier.
>I'm playing fast and loose with the term 'multiplier'. In this case, I'm not > >just thinking of the economic activity that results from spending the >revenues generated by advertising but I have in mind both the purposes of >the advertising to stimulate greater purchasing (at higher prices) and also >including in part associated activities that don't strictly count as >'advertising', for example products with a licence refering to another >product, like star wars toys, etc.-- all parts of the whole being, in >effect, advertisements for all the other parts. > >Not only is the cost of the ads passed on to purchasers of the advertised >items, it is passed on to purchasers who may happen to not appreciate the >"free" television programming. You'd have to pay me a wage to watch TV. In >my estimate, the TV programming is more offensive than the advertising. It's >the original spam. > >michael perelman wrote, > >> <>> >>> Why do you think traditional ads would have a higher multiplier? >> Also, with > >>> respect >>> to Jim's comment, cost of the ads on tv or in the paper are passed on to >>> purchasers, >>> who become convinced that Tom W.'s hat has more utils. >> >> > >
