The latest one is called Could 2012 Super Bowl Spots Double Their Impact As iAds?
The article's premise is based on a piece of junk research done by Nielsen (on Apple's behalf) that purports to demonstrate that...
"...Apple's iAds appear to be twice as effective as a TV spot."This conclusion is based on an exhaustive study of one (count 'em, one) ad for Campbell's soup.
The article does the usual journalistic trick of describing why the study was complete bullshit and then adds the 'nonetheless' conclusion.
The piece seems to have no understanding of the cost-benefit relationship that advertisers have to deal with. It states
...It was hardly a(n)....apples-to-apples comparison, since the TV ad was passive and the iAd featured all kinds of interactivity such as recipes....Duh. Hiring people to knock on 100 million doors and personally explain the benefits of a product would also have a lot more impact than a Super Bowl spot. But it's kinda expensive.
And, just as an aside, at the current rate of sales it will take the iPad about 100 years to reach the number of people the Super Bowl will reach. But let's not let facts or logic stand in the way of a good headline.