Internet Advertising -- Your Take
October 18, 2004 | 
40 Comments
Summary: A discussion on internet advertising, etc.
Advertising on the Web is a topic I’ve been interested in for quite awhile. It’s one that I’m also of two minds about.
Until the last year or so I’ve always been a bit bothered by ads on Web sites I visit. I’m not naive about it however and have generally thought of them as a necessary nuisance that comes along with “free” content and/or services.
It’s just that some of them were/are so horribly intrusive on my user experience. They’d cover my content, distract with motion and generally get in my way. There has been a move away from these kinds of ads, and I think that has reinvigorated interest, and the use, of advertising online.
Things have changed…a bit.
I’m not sure if it’s just that I’ve learned to tune them out for the most part, or if it might be the advent of unobtrusive text advertising, but ads bother me less now than they did before. It could also be because I’m actually seeing a bit of revenue from my own ads.
There is a school of thought that advertising on the Web is destined for failure. This is something I used to buy in to, but I’m beginning to think that there is a place on the Web, or wherever there is free content, for some kind of advertising.
Take Google’s Adsense for example. These ads are unobtrusive and because of the content sensing technology they use, can actually add value to a user’s experience at times. I know I’ve often hit a page that actually serves me ads that I can use.
For example, I wrote a review for Jim Henson’s Storyteller Collection yesterday. Currently that page shows ads that are pointing to places where I can purchase that DVD. These kinds of ads I can appreciate.
What works, and what doesn’t.
To me, “good” Web ads are:
- Cleary marked
- Unobtrusive
- Relevant to content
- Text-based
- Fast loading
- Motionless
As for my take on internet advertising I think ads are fine, as long as they aren’t too obtrusive to the user experience. I don’t like ads that distract with animation or cover content. As well, I’m not personally a fan of large graphical ads.
I don’t tend to click on many ads, but more and more I’m finding text ads, especially the context sensitive Google Adsense ads, to actually be helpful at times. If they are clearly marked as ads, or presented in a way that makes it reasonably obvious what they I don’t really mind them at all.
It’s here that I see the future of advertising. Pretty soon I imagine we’ll be seeing similar ads served up in our RSS feeds and as long as they’re not too large, too distracting and are clearly marked as ads I’m all right with that also.
Your take?
What do you think? Do you mind ads in your Web content? Do you hate ‘em? What makes a good ad?Do you use ads on your own site? What about ads in RSS? Does the prospect of that make you irate? Or do you see it as inevitable?
Feel free to answer however you wish. Let’s discuss.
Filed under: Web General
Comments
1. John Zeratsky said:
We’ve been trying to figure out what works for advertising on the new Badger Herald site, and so far have come across no great solutions. We have Google ads, which are frequently quite useful, but we haven’t made much money from them. We also have standard graphical ads (no motion), but they are selling poorly and I don’t think they are worth the investment of space and bandwidth.
I’ve been interested in persistent page sponsorhips lately, like the ones on Daring Fireball, Whitespace, or Coudal. Assuming your audience is narrow enough, this is a tasteful and (I assume) effective way of reaching a bunch of people.
Affiliate programs also seem like a good idea. Our sports section is popular among football fans, so selling tickets through an affilliate seems like a great idea.
As a user, I agree with you 100%. Unobtrusive, text-based, targeted ads are best for me. Quite often, I actually find them interesting and helpful. Ads in RSS are fine by me, as long as they follow my other “rules” for reasonable ads.
Posted on October 18, 2004 10:57 AM | #
2. Keith said:
John – I’ve thought about persistent sponsorship here as well. In fact Scrivs and I talked about that awhile back, I’m interested to see how it pans out for him. It does seem like there would need to be some significant effort involved in managing that.
But it does seem like a good way to provide relevant “ads” in a clean and unobtrusive way.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:03 AM | #
3. Thomas Cutter said:
I don’t mind ads, if they are something I haven’t seen before.
Content targeted ad providers have keyed in on this. They think that if it’s not relevant, than chances of people being interested in the ad is not likely.
But I don’t really agree with this on most websites. The plan is for the user to change direction, to want to know more about the subject. And I think internet advertising does a poor job of this. When ads become too targeted, they become monotonous. I would love to see ads that are actually interesting and/or useful to me, if not at least largely popular.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:10 AM | #
4. Roger Johansson said:
I too think that ads annoy me less now than a couple of years ago. The text based kind, that is. Most news paper sites, at least the Swedish ones, seem to consist mostly of huge, moving, colourful, annoying Flash ads that slow anything but relatively new computers to a crawl. They are also extremely annoying, did I mention that? And I can’t remember ever clicking on one.
Text based ads, on the other hand, tend to be much more relevant to the content of the site, and thus of more interest to me. So I actually click on them occasionally, to find out more.
I use Google ads on my own site, and I’m hoping that I’ve found some kind of balance where they are unobtrusive without being completely invisible.
Text ads in RSS feeds would be fine by me. I mostly use my RSS reader to open the stuff I want to read in browser tabs anyway.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:13 AM | #
5. John Zeratsky said:
Keith:
RE: “It does seem like there would need to be some significant effort involved in managing that.”
I would be curious to know how Scrivs, Gruber and Coudal got their sponsorships. Did they just put themselves out there and wait? Or did they seek out specific advertisers they thought would benefit from space on their site?
A little extra work isn’t bad if revenue is coming in. But it’s a bit of a gamble. AdSense is so popular in part because it’s so easy to set up – there is little risk in trying out advertising on your site.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:17 AM | #
6. Coudal said:
The ads don’t sell themselves but I think we’ve been successful with them because 1. There’s only one spot on any page view. 2. We won’t take an ad for a product or service that we havn’t paid for and used and our readers know this.. 3. We generate a lot of traffic and the people who read our site are, in many cases, publishers themselves.
We wrote to the companies we thought would benefit from being on our site and we could speak to them from our experience buying lots of ads for our Jewelboxing product. A narrow focus and an ad that is intergrated with the content of the site in terms of reader interest, will always cost more than simply buying eyeballs, will be worth the premium in terms of sales and spreading the message. At least that’s our experience.
Hope this helps…
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:31 AM | #
7. Scrivs said:
Guess I should chime in here.
My sponsorships come from just sitting around and waiting and also selecting a couple of companies and shooting them an email. I need to hit the road harder in regards to finding more companies, but I seriously have this huge list of todo items that need to be checked off first.
I am sure Coudal had a million people ask if they could advertise on the site and they finally gave in and I know Gruber just sits around and waits for someone to approach him.
If this is just extra money for you then you are better off focusing on building a great site. The problem with Internet Advertising is people start sites with the hope of making money in the first week. Focus more on the site and the money will come.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:32 AM | #
8. Scrivs said:
Well damn, Coudal answered that himself. Screw what I said :-)
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:33 AM | #
9. Abel Rios said:
I don’t mind advertising at all as long as it’s relevant. The ad has to mesh with the atmosphere as well. If it doesn’t fit, then there’s really no point of placing it.
I’m okay with graphical/flash ads, as long as there has been some sort of interaction between the user and the ad. I mean, this is the whole point of interactivity to begin with. Unless, I want to see more, don’t show me more.
Text ads are genious. They’re subtle, and take very little away from the overall experience.
Page sponsorships can eventually become a daunting and confusing task, if not monitored carefully.
To think, I almost accepted a position where my primary responsibility was to create Flash Ads. That would’ve got boring real quick!
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:36 AM | #
10. Dave P said:
The ad question once again.
If there’s one thing that’s still left over from the .com era, it’s the notion of the internet being condusive to advertising; like TV.
Now don’t take me the wrong way, I’m not anti-ad in the least. Everything costs money, and everything needs to be paid for, but I’m still not sold on the whole idea of web ads.
Neither do I. In fact, I rarely even notice yours, and other “good” ones. My point is, does anyone? Even if they are “noticed” (usually because they’ve blocked content in some way - and pissed me off) is this a positive experience? How many “clicks” actually translate into a sale? I suppose someone must be buying, but then again we did have the whole .com fiasco…
Clearly most of you will have more concrete numbers than I would, but are they really that convincing? If they aren’t, then what’s the point? But I’m way off topic now.
As a casual visitor, I seem to take note of prolonged sponsorships. For example, I know that StopDesign is partnered in some respect with mediatemple, and that Kuro5hin is supported by Voxel and John Companies.
To me this type sponsorship seems to be the way to go.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:38 AM | #
11. Keith said:
Coudal – Thanks, that is helpful. The idea of only having adverts for products you’ve used is an interesting, and very good, one. It kind of adds weight and relevance, thus making the ad itself more useful and probably ensuring a higher clickthough as well.
Reading your ad “disclaimer” has really given me something to think about, thanks for that.
Scrivs – You make an excellent point when talking about concenrating on the site (and content) first. I’d have never added ads to my site except that I was being asked for them so much I eventually just gave in and tried Adsense. I don’t make a ton of money, but they’re easy to manage and they do pay a few bills.
But the content needed to be there first.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:41 AM | #
12. Jeremy Flint said:
I have not noticed as much advertising lately either. The “fake pop-up” ads still bother me. Especially when they have sound or motion associated with them, or it is not immediately clear how to close it.
I have started using Google ads on my site and have not gotten any complaints. I think the ability to cusomtize google ads to match site colors makes them less obtrusive, and therefore more preferred than banner ads.
Banner ads are hard to sell because although they area guaranteed a specific number of impressions, its not usually certain that those impressions are on a page that gets 10 hits a day or 10,000 hits a day.
And the single sponsor method that Gruber and Scrivs have gone to works well because they cater to a certain spectrum of users.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:42 AM | #
13. Keith said:
Dave – I think you might be surprised, as I continually am, at how many people click on the ads. As well, as they become more relevant, I do tend to use them more.
Not sure it that means they’re here to stay, but if they weren’t working at all I’d have removed mine long ago.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:44 AM | #
14. John Zeratsky said:
Scrivs and Coudal: Thanks for your input. It would be hard to verify this (maybe you can provide some more insight, Jim), but it seems like an ad that you’ve “approved” carries more weight and would be more effective than one you haven’t. That’s the idea, I am sure – but does it work?
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:51 AM | #
15. Coudal said:
but it seems like an ad that you’ve approved carries more weight and would be more effective than one you haven’t.
That makes sense to me. But even more important, I think, is whether the ad is relevant to the readership. (Google ads are frequently not.) We’ve turned down quite a few inquiries because of our policy, but in the end, I think it makes our site, more valuable to our advertisers *and* to our readers.
Posted on October 18, 2004 12:01 PM | #
16. Michael Moncur said:
As for who clicks on ads–if you can’t imagine who would click on ads, you probably aren’t entirely aware of who’s visiting the site.
Sure, there are regular visitors to a site like Asterisk who read the great content and have no use for the ads. But there are also people who found their way to the site via a link, or a Google search, and it isn’t their favorite. They look for somewhere else to go, and ads help them do that.
Heck, I’m a regular reader and I’ve clicked on the Google ads here more than once. They’re so on-topic they get my attention.
I have a more entertainment-oriented site that gets over 50,000 visitors a day, and it uses lots of advertising. 90% of the visitors have come via Google and have no intention of becoming regular readers. After they find what they need, they’re prone to wander off by clicking on ads. It works, and thank heaven it does, considering the high cost of running that site.
Posted on October 18, 2004 12:04 PM | #
17. Keith said:
Coudal – I think the relevancy of Google’s adsense ads really varies. On many pages they’re very relevant and on others not so much.
I do think they perform better on the pages where they’re relevant.
Michael – Good point. The majority of my ads aren’t targeted towards “regular” readers. I get quite a bit of traffic via search engine results and I imagine that is where my click-through comes from.
Posted on October 18, 2004 12:17 PM | #
18. Dave P said:
Michael & Keith:
I suppose I should clarify. I wasn’t suggesting that ads aren’t effective for the website they are viewed on, I was inquiring as to their effectiveness for those who purchase them.
Now, common knowledge says that a business wouldn’t buy an ad if it didn’t work, but recent history (as in the .com mess) shows that sometimes people fail to use any common knowledge at all. :-)
What I wondering about is, how many of those visitors of yours that are “wandering off” are translating directly into sales? Although this really may not be your immediate concern, should the internet advertising “bubble” (if there is one) break, your site will be affected a great deal.
Assuming - and without any concrete information regarding the ad to sales relationship, it’s all I can do - a disparity, it would seem that a partnership/sponsorship with an extended relationship would make better business sense for both parties.
Does concrete information on the viability of website ads, from an ad purchaser’s POV exist out there? Can someone shed light on this?
Posted on October 18, 2004 12:33 PM | #
19. M. said:
I confess to pretty much hating all of them.
‘Course, that’s the user me speaking; the developer me grudgingly admits that yeah, some of them have value… and a few of them actually work.
Mostly, I close my eyes and hope the darn things will just go away. Hasn’t worked with campaign ads, though, so I don’t know why it would work with any other kind. Just wishful thinking, I guess.
Text ads and sponsorships are least objectional to me. But I find myself much more irritated at Flash ads now than I’ve ever been. On my personal worst offenders list: American City Business Journals, who likes to drop them smack dab in the middle of an article.
Argh.
Posted on October 18, 2004 12:55 PM | #
20. Keith said:
Dave – Well looking at my Amazon associate stuff (not really ads, but) they seem to do pretty well, even if I don’t make much on those sales. My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that, as with the click-through, the effectiveness to advertisers may surprise you.
But I see your point. Then again, it’s out of my hands and I suppose if what you mention comes to pass, I’d eventually have no reason to have ads on my site.
Posted on October 18, 2004 01:40 PM | #
21. John Zeratsky said:
I tend to believe it’s working – i.e. advertisers are actually seeing a ROI – or else I think they would have given up by now. Web advertising is not in its infancy anymore (not in web terms, anyway). As for affiliate programs, maybe that’s a different case. Retailers have nothing to lose by accepting affiliates, since it probably only takes a few extra sales a year to offset the minimal costs of running the program.
Posted on October 18, 2004 02:07 PM | #
22. Keith H. said:
I have to say that I really haven’t given ads much thought from a business perspective (i.e. sites that sell ad space). But from a consumer perspective, I don’t really notice them much. My focus is usually on content or information architecture when I am visiting a site.
I find the large flash ads that cover up content extremely annoying. But I would be interested to know how effective ads are on sites. Which type drive the most traffic to your sponsors (in terms of size, placement and relevance). Are they truly worth the investment?
Posted on October 18, 2004 02:37 PM | #
23. Tom said:
To back up what many have said, Adsense ads are fine - in fact I actually quite like them, they provide related links! However, have something floating across the screen or something that drops down when I move my pointer within 4 miles of it and I’m off the site almost instantaneously.
Posted on October 18, 2004 03:22 PM | #
24. Adam Gautsch said:
Ads in general don’t bug me. We are all capitalist here (or at least most of us are, I hope) but many times poor ads can screw ones capitalist ends more than help. ESPN.com has been cut from my regular visit list because of all the horrible moving ads involved in the site. Up with text ads down with moving ads.
Posted on October 18, 2004 04:03 PM | #
25. Dan Bowling said:
I beleive that ads are a necisary evil in most cases, but can often very much deter from the user experience. Take teachers.net for example, this site has more ad content than real content!
I greatly agree with your point about clearly marking the ads, especially with text ads. Many users can’t seem to tell the difference between an ad and content on some sites, which creates huge problems from a site administration standpoint.
Posted on October 18, 2004 04:25 PM | #
26. David Chen said:
As a user, I make a point of clicking on interesting ads on sites that I feel are valuable. I refuse to click on any ad that I feel is annoying because I think it will just encourage more of those. So, I usually just click on Google AdSense advertisements, but they rarely lead to useful sites.
The most valuable advertisements to me are those that are handpicked and recommended: sponsorships and affiliate links. Reviews from credible people mean a lot to me, and I spend much more time looking through those websites than any I come across in a random ad.
Posted on October 18, 2004 04:41 PM | #
27. Jenni said:
Most graphical ads do not annoy me, but they often take away quality from a good design. Text ads I have no problem with at all. Actually- I find myself clicking them often.
Posted on October 18, 2004 08:09 PM | #
28. Tommy Olsson said:
I do understand the need for some sites to use advertising to pay for the site, or even make some money out of it. However, I really don’t like any form of advertising. I can put up with them if the content is good enough, and the ads aren’t too intrusive. Google’s text ads don’t bother me.
I’ve uninstalled Flash, since it is so often abused in making annoying ads. I’ve also disabled animations in Mozilla, because I find moving objects extremely distracting when I try to read.
Large, colourful ads, interstitials and pop-ups/pop-unders are really bad. As Roger said, most Swedish newspaper sites are terrible at this. I’ll accept it, though, if it means that I can read the news without paying.
I would never buy anything from someone who forces an intrusive ad on me. I never look at Google ads either, so marketing is mostly wasted on me. I realise that I’m an extreme minority, though. :)
Personally, I detest all forms of marketing: spam, TV and radio commercials, the junk mail that fills up my mailbox so that the mailman can’t fit the proper mail into it…
Posted on October 18, 2004 10:25 PM | #
29. teli said:
Is it me or are more of those “slide in” or “drop in” windows making it through pop-up blockers? These ads I cannot stand. I have a pop-up blocker for a reason, therefore if you find a way to bypass it and shove something in my face, there is a strong chance I will never return to your site (not speaking directly to you Keith, simply a general opinion in regards to sites who use this marketing tactic).
On my other internet travels, I came across a website which had some really great content, but as I was reading I heard a “plunk” noise and looked up to realize it was a banner ad. A golf-ball going into the hole - it wasn’t so bad the first time - but hearing it some 10 times while I was reading the article drove me mad…this type of advertising is certainly not acceptable.
Purely from a user pov, anything that barges it’s way onto my computer screen is simply bad marketing and it does not bode well for the site that does it…and there are few exceptions to this rule.
I sometimes wonder why some advertisers don’t take a hint from their target market when it comes to what they want, what they will accept, and how to reach them properly, the internet world would be a much better place if they did…
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:00 PM | #
30. Joel said:
Even though I have a book review site, I do not link to Amazon. I considered it, briefly, but decided it wasn’t in keeping with what the site was about and could influence objectivity adversely, or at least it could be perceived that way.
Google ads I find one of the worst things that has happened to the web, in that it has engendered a “culture” that this is how the web is now. Sites with Google ads I just see as sites where the owner may or may not be earning some revenue, but at the cost of being part of this “gold rush” after pennies. To me, the sites that now stand out are those that do not have ads at all, that refuse to become part of that culture of grubbing after every last dime. Website owners constantly tell themselves that they have to support their running costs etc and that text ads are unobtrusive. Well they would do wouldn’t they? Fact is, sites with Google ads say just one thing to me: bought and paid for by corporate culture wanting to sell you crap.
Keith, you say: “I was being asked for them so much I eventually just gave in and tried Adsense” Surely not, I can’t imagine anyone actually requesting that you put ads on your site! Let’s arm-twist Keith to advertise some crap on his site, he knows it’s in his best interests. No, I can’t quite imagine it.
All sites with Google ads have a little something taken away from them, and I find it dispiriting that so many want to justify them, while others are setting up sites merely to take advantage of their revenue-earning potential. If people want to make money from the web, how about having a proper product to sell? Write a book, publish it, and sell it. Or a CD. Or whatever. Something real and your own. Justify Google ads as much as you like, at the end of the day they’re just bloody ads.
I’m amazed to hear so few dissenting voices. Shows the extent this “ad-culture” has people in its grip. The fact is that even if you’re poor, like me, you can still afford to do your website without bowing and scraping like a hobo selling matchbooks to earn enough for a cup of tea. Why are you doing a website? Just to make money? If so, plaster your site with ads. If you’re doing it because it’s your interest why allow some of the trashiest websites on the internet to have access to your readers? Don’t you respect your readers more than that? A site advocating good web design allowing bad web designers to advertise unchecked is the price you personally are paying. Never mind the few times when an ad may be useful, consider all the times it flies right in the face of the ethos of the site.
Google. How big do they want to be exactly? And isn’t every ad an ad for them, silencing adverse criticism on the cheap? A little change jingling in your pocket. Was it worth it?
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:08 PM | #
31. Philipp Keller said:
Joel: Word.
Ads are for me generally very annoying. In real life (public transport) as on the web.
Google Ads annoy me more than others because I see Google everywhere on the Web. What the heck: Is the Web=Google? Keith, I like your site very much, I’m reading it every day. But the worst thing about your site are the Google ads. This makes a site generally “cheap”. I’m running sites my own, I know of the costs.
Ok, it’s everyones decisions but I’d prefer donation over ads. I’ve seen a site where ads were shown and when you donated, the ads disappeared. Ok, this was a community site and this is not practicable here.
I know of the cost problem, and I am not for the “everything is free”. I think what the interenet needs most is a good payment system.
I prefer to pay for a site than watching ads all the time.
Posted on October 18, 2004 11:29 PM | #
32. Keith said:
Joel and Phillipp – I respect your views, but I’ll tell you this; the reason why I continue to have ads on my site (it started out as an experiment based on interest I received from would be advertisers. Joel I think you misunderstood me, my bad.) is because they actually bring in a decent amount of coin. It’s more than pennies.
I love to write, but at the end of the day this site is a lot of work. It’s good work, and I’m proud of it, but it’s still work. Hard, sometimes thankless, work.
You may think it selling out, or cheapening in someway, and that’s fine. Money isn’t everything, true, but working for free can be a challenge. Trust me, even though these ads bring me some beer money, they don’t come close to paying me back on the effort I put in.
My goals for this site have changed a bit. Once I realized that it was becoming work to maintain I wanted to stop all together. It might be different for you guys, but everything I write gets analyzed, I get more e-mail than I can easily deal with (and I try to answer it all) and because I’ve got a great, large and active readership I’ve got to spend quite a bit of time simply maintaining the site, let alone finding time to write.
Heck spammers want to make money of my site, why shouldn’t I? You talk about a “real product” Joel, but I consider this site a “real product”. Unfortunately I can’t sell it, so I’ve got ads.
It’s not like I write any differently because of them. To be honest, they’re so easy to set up, the only effort I’ve put into them is to try and place them where they work, yet not become to obtrusive.
If the ads didn’t work they’d not be here. Simple as that. I imagine many other content providers, from the small fry like me to the big corporations feel the same.
Why in the heck would I not have ads? To keep the few people who find them distasteful happy? To be quite honest, I care about all my readers, but I don’t care that much. ;-)
Don’t like ‘em? Don’t read I guess. If there were another way to easily generate some income with my site, I’d try it. As it stands now there isn’t.
I don’t feel I need to justify them. They are what they are and I’ve never pretended otherwise. Blood ads. Too right. I’ve also never had a single complaint (until now) about them, and probably wouldn’t change anything if I did. Most people are ok with ‘em. That’s fine by me.
Look, I get enough traffic via Google that if it really was all about the money I’d stop writing near as much, put ads all over the place and just sit back and make money. I turn down offers to place ads on this site all the time.
I’m trying to find a balance that works for me, and so far, so good. Wish I could please everyone, but it’s not possible.
Posted on October 19, 2004 12:07 AM | #
33. Philipp Keller said:
Keith, thanks for your explanation. I think I see your view now clearer..
And thank you for your site. I know it’s a huge job to do. Your site added a lot to my understanding of web design and such. Sorry if I am just criticising.. wasn’t meant like that.
Posted on October 19, 2004 01:27 AM | #
34. Petri Wessman said:
I agree that text-based or motionless, visually pleasing ads are the only ones I have even a shred of patience for nowadays. However, I have to admit that I’ve become so allergic nowadays that I just use AdBlock to remove all advertising (even Google text ads) from sites I visit. I never see them again, and I’m happier.
The thing with the web is that you have to tread a very fine line with ads, since your readership has control over what they see (unlike in printed media). If you are annoying, they will add you to a global block list, and after that they will never again see any of your ads, for anything. Kerplunk.
Of course, this only applies to tech-sophisticated people, the Great Unwashed Masses with their spyware-infested Windows boxes and old, unpatched versions of IE will have no idea they have control over anything, and will just stop visiting a site if the ads become too annoying vs. the perceived value of the content.
Posted on October 19, 2004 02:48 AM | #
35. Philipp Keller said:
Petri: Thank you very much for the tip. I now enjoy Keiths site without the Google ads :-)
Posted on October 19, 2004 03:26 AM | #
36. Joel said:
Having ads is of course a personal decision, and if it brings in significant revenue I can of course understand your reasoning for having them. I was more concerned with what you lose by having them. Philipp put it well when he referred to a cheapening effect. Certainly I think less of a site for taking ads, and see it as fuelling the general culture of ads on websites, thereby encouraging others to do likewise, particularly when they talk of earning a good revenue from it (on the basis of which others spoil their sites with these eyesores for far less than the lucky few in the hope of similarly raking it in). In the end, something is lost overall. The prevailing culture has changed.
I agree, a website is a product, and one hard to sell as such, but taking ads is small change for the effort put in and a little demaning to that effort as well. It is better to use a website as a place to fuel other more personal ways of raising revenue that add real worth to the world.
Posted on October 19, 2004 06:07 AM | #
37. Dan Bowling said:
Well said, and I thank you for the product Kieth. People often forget that a site like this evolves beyond merely a personal site, and into a resource for the community. Since many benifit from it, it seems unfair that you burden the cost of both upkeep and bandwidth. I beleive most of us accept the ads as merely a way to upkeep the upkeep, so to say.
Besides, aren’t ads self regulating? At the moment there is too many of them, they become useless and will not make money, so they decrease in numbers. Ads are utilitarian, they work! No one can be blamed for doing somthing that works.
Posted on October 19, 2004 08:36 AM | #
38. Andy said:
I think that advertising is effective when it is specific and targeted.
Spam is the best example, it is clearly unwanted by the majority of recipients, if the spammers spent some time finding out who was interested, makin sure they were at least in the right country, etc.. then everyone would be happy. Similarly ads that obscure content or use other tricks to force the user to see them really are destined to fail.
I think that the key to good advertising is to get away from mass marketing and try and tailor content to the site it is on, sure it will take up more time, but if you are selling cheese and can get a mention, a real mid text mention, on a we love cheese site then your in for a winner.
I guess im saying ads are fine, as long as i have the choice to take or leave them, without being forced to see it, that is great, but unless it is of real relevence to the specific subject I am reading on at that moment in time, then i don’t really want to see it all.
Perhaps an advertising exchange is the way to go. The company provides details of who they are, what they are, what they produce and believe in. Users writing articles select from the list of companies whose adverts will be relevent and provide the reader with a benefit, or a place for some further research, and depending on circulation figures the company pays for being chosen.
Posted on October 19, 2004 08:37 AM | #
39. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
The best advertisements, web or otherwise, are ones that effectively don’t exist unless you’re looking for them.
I know when I want to buy something, and when that time comes, I’ll go looking for what I want.
The rest of the time, I’d thank adpersons kindly to go find a group of lemmings and see where they’re headed…
Posted on October 19, 2004 01:55 PM | #
40. Will said:
I found this site while doing a Google for “worst internet ads,” meaning companies known for bad ads. Anyhow, I have to say I haven’t seen a decline in “in your face” type ads at all. On my home PC I make every attempt to block ads using a host list and pop-up blocker so when I surf the net from work I see a stark contrast. Flash banners at every turn. Pop-ups galore. Horrible.
Posted on December 6, 2004 01:14 PM | #
Comments are now closed