A similar revenue model has been successfully propping up print periodicals for at least two centuries. But, as opposed to their online counterparts, print products have a few streams of income, not least among them paid subscriptions.

Moreover, print media kept their costs down in good times and bad. Dot.coms devoured their investors' money in a self-destructive and avaricious bacchanalia.

But why did online advertising collapse in first place? Was it ineffective?

Advertising is a multi-faceted and psychologically complex phenomenon. It imparts information to potential consumers, users, suppliers, investors, community, or other stakeholders in firm. It motivates each of these to do his bit: consumers to consume, investors to invest and so on.

But this is not main function of advertising dollar. Modern economic signal theory has cast advertising in a new and surprising - though by no means counterintuitive - light.

According to this theory, role of advertising is to signal to marketplace advertiser's resilience, longevity, wealth, clout, and dominance. By splurging money of advertising, advertiser actually informs us - "eyeballs" - that it is here to stay, sufficiently affluent to finance its ads, stable, reliable, and dominant.

"If firm X invested a million bucks in advertising - it must be worth more than a million bucks" - goes signal. "If it invested so much money in promoting its products, it is not a fly-by-night". "If it can throw money at an ad campaign, it is stable and resilient".

This signal is missing in online advertising. It drowns in noise. The online noise to signal ratio was unacceptable to advertisers - so they stopped advertising. When noise to signal ratio tops a certain level - ads cease to be effective. The readers or spectators become inured to messages - both explicit and implicit. They tune off.

The noise in online advertising stems from two sources.

A critical element in signal is lost if ad is not paid for. Only paid advertising conveys information about purported health and prospects of advertiser. Yet, Internet is flooded with free advertising: free classifieds, free banner ads, ad exchanges. The paid ads drown in this ocean of free ads. There is often no way of telling a paid ad from a free one - without reading fine print.

Thus, an effective website communicates to it's audience and, oftentimes, audience communicates back. In other words, an effective website is defined simply in a single sentence: it communicates well with it's intended audience. Period.

Now, if your intended audience is people who need a certain kind of widget, and you get those people to purchase your widgets, then your website is a success.

It does not matter if "non-target" audience doesn't get communication (and hence does not purchase). They are not target!

Now, folded into this equation is matter of ethics. In order for a society to exist and it's members to prosper, rules are agreed upon for civilized conduct. Thus, you can expect that you can drive down street without getting a rock through your window or a bullet in your back (at least in California). Civilized people have agreed that this is inappropriate behavior.

There is an even higher plain of ethics, where you decide to follow a code which is "higher" than that agreed upon by society. It is very interesting that there is a direct correlation between a person's ethics and his long term success. More ethical people tend to survive better than less ethical people (in long term). I am not referring just to money here (although that is part of equation). This is overall quality of life. While Howard Hughes certainly was very rich, for example, I do not believe that in later part of his life anyone could claim he was happy - his final years struck me as miserable. He was highly unethical, and this caught up with him.

So questions come down to: do you communicate effectively to your target audience, and do you present this communication in an ethical manner?