????詢問(wèn)任何一位非廣告從業(yè)者“留下印象”是何意，你很可能會(huì)得到諸如“做某件讓人記住的事情”這類合理的答復(fù)。然而，在廣告業(yè)內(nèi)，“印象”的定義幾乎沒(méi)有這么簡(jiǎn)單。為什么呢？原因在于，如果你在電視、電臺(tái)或印刷媒體上打廣告，根本沒(méi)辦法確切掌握這些廣告究竟給多少人留下了“印象”。多少人抬頭看過(guò)某個(gè)特定的廣告牌？多少人在商業(yè)廣告播出期間關(guān)注電視？所以，媒體公司歷來(lái)測(cè)量、銷售的其實(shí)是留下印象的潛力。這套體系產(chǎn)生了預(yù)期效果，因?yàn)闋I(yíng)銷商可以估算多少人或許真正看到了他們的廣告，幾十年下來(lái)也計(jì)算出了這些“潛在印象”的真正價(jià)值。廣告圈所稱的CPM，即獲得每千個(gè)（潛在）印象的成本，就源自這段歷史。CPM市場(chǎng)不僅效率驚人，而且非常龐大，市值達(dá)數(shù)萬(wàn)億美元之巨。它推動(dòng)塑造了無(wú)數(shù)大品牌，并為人們喜聞樂(lè)見(jiàn)的新聞和娛樂(lè)內(nèi)容的創(chuàng)造提供了資金。

????接著，數(shù)字時(shí)代來(lái)了。

????借助于數(shù)字媒體，媒體公司和廣告客戶終于可以知道到底有多少人看到了它們的廣告?？萍甲屖袌?chǎng)來(lái)衡量實(shí)際的印象，而不是潛在的印象。但有一個(gè)問(wèn)題：盡管比起傳統(tǒng)的“潛在印象”，“實(shí)際印象”要更加罕見(jiàn)，更有價(jià)值，但數(shù)量更龐大的“潛在印象”業(yè)已成了數(shù)十億美元的市場(chǎng)形成的基礎(chǔ)。

????為了滿足需求，同時(shí)讓這項(xiàng)定義與電視和其他不易衡量的版式保持一致，廣告客戶和媒體出版商都同意有意維持“印象”的松散定義。這個(gè)故意留下的漏洞旨在維系“印象”市場(chǎng)的流動(dòng)性。問(wèn)題是，在數(shù)字時(shí)代，媒體公司可以簡(jiǎn)單地創(chuàng)造印象。起初，它們具備低價(jià)值，但就如同任何一件擁有無(wú)限供給的事物一樣，這個(gè)行業(yè)最終創(chuàng)造了零價(jià)值“印象”。為了方便理解這兩個(gè)例子，設(shè)想你擁有一個(gè)網(wǎng)頁(yè)。今天你在這個(gè)網(wǎng)頁(yè)上發(fā)布了兩則廣告，然后你重新設(shè)計(jì)，到了明天，你就發(fā)布了10則廣告。你剛剛“創(chuàng)造了”更多的印象，但并沒(méi)有贏得更多的關(guān)注（而這恰恰是廣告客戶尋求的東西），自然也就沒(méi)有帶來(lái)更多的消費(fèi)支出（這是廣告客戶的終極目的）。這只不過(guò)是價(jià)值更低的印象。更大的問(wèn)題是，鑒于印象的寬泛定義，那些真正精通互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的人士完全可以創(chuàng)造沒(méi)有人能看到的“印象”，比如在網(wǎng)站背景上播放視頻或者制造虛假流量【在《廣告周刊》(AdWeek)的一篇文章中，邁克?希爾茲列舉了一個(gè)采用這種手法的絕佳例證】。

????所有這些低質(zhì)量和欺騙性的印象持續(xù)壓低高質(zhì)量?jī)?nèi)容生產(chǎn)商因“真正的”印象而獲得的價(jià)格。好吧，你或許會(huì)說(shuō)，那又怎樣？如果存在這么多欺詐行為，價(jià)值就應(yīng)該下降。說(shuō)的沒(méi)錯(cuò)，但隨著印象價(jià)格的下降，高品質(zhì)內(nèi)容公司面臨三種選擇：

????1. 把越來(lái)越多的廣告加載到內(nèi)容之中（這種做法對(duì)消費(fèi)者不利，他們反過(guò)來(lái)會(huì)尋找一種避免觀看這些廣告的方式，從而持續(xù)降低印象的價(jià)值）。

????2. 找到一種讓消費(fèi)者為無(wú)廣告內(nèi)容付費(fèi)的方式【家庭影院頻道(HBO)，PandoraOne廣播頻道、奈飛公司(Netflix)和資訊網(wǎng)(The Information)就是這樣做的】。

????3. 關(guān)門大吉。

????Ask someone who doesn't work in advertising what it means to "make an impression," you will likely get a reasonable response like "to do something that someone remembers." However, inside the advertising industry, the definition of "impression" is not nearly as simple. Why? Because if you run an advertisement on TV, radio, or print, you have never been able to tell exactly how many people those advertisements really made an "impression" on. How many people looked up at a particular billboard? How many people paid attention to the TV during the commercial? So what media companies have historically measured -- and sold -- is really the potential to make an impression. This system worked because marketers could make estimations on how many people might actually see their advertisements and over decades figured out the real value of these "potential impressions."From this history came the cost per thousand (potential) impressions, better known as CPM in media industry. The CPM market was astonishingly effective, and large, to the tune of trillions of dollars. It drove the creation of major brands and subsidized the creation of the news and entertainment content people love.

????And then digital came along.

????With digital media, media companies and advertisers could finally know exactly how many people saw their advertisements. Technology allowed the market to measure actual impressions, rather than potential impressions. But there was a problem: While "actual impressions" were much more rare, and much more valuable than the traditional "potential impressions," the multibillion dollar market had already been created on the more numerous "potential impressions."

????In order to meet the demand and to keep the definition in line with TV and other less measurable formats, advertisers and media publishers alike agreed to keep the definition of an impression intentionally loose. This was a loophole created to help keep the market for "impressions" liquid. The problem was that in digital, media companies could simply create impressions. At first they were low value, but as with anything that has an infinite supply, the industry was eventually creating "impressions" that had zero value. For examples of both, imagine that you have a web page, today you have two ads on that web page, and then you redesign so that tomorrow you have 10. You just "created" more impressions. But there isn't any more human attention (what advertisers are seeking) and there is no more human spending (what advertisers are really seeking). And that is just lower value impressions. The even bigger problem is that given the loose definition of impression, really Internet savvy people could create "impressions" that no human could ever see, like videos playing in the background or fake traffic to sites. (Mike Shields over at AdWeek highlights a perfect example of this practice.)

????All of this low quality and fraudulent impression continues to depress the price quality content producers can get for "real" impressions. Okay, you might say. So what? If there is that much fraud, the value should drop. And that is true, but as the price of the impression drops, quality content companies have three choices:

????1. Load up more and more advertisement impressions into their content (which is bad for consumers, who in turn find a way to avoid, and continues to lower the value of impressions)

????2. Find a way to have consumers pay for content without advertising (HBO, PandoraOne, Netflix, The Information).

????3. Go out of business.