3 ms·

I sympathize with this view, but how exactly are advertisers supposed to come up with more "creative" and "compelling" concepts that somehow will work when user

I sympathize with this view, but how exactly are advertisers supposed to come up with more "creative" and "compelling" concepts that somehow will work when users fundamentally don't want the thing they make - ads? In a broader sense, it's very questionable to say "Gee, content sites should be profitable!" and cheerfully avoid explaining just how, especially right after you've finished explaining how every known method of monetizing content just won't work.

mmasnick 17y ago
As the guy who wrote the post linked to above, I should note that in the post itself I describe multiple examples of how to come up with creative and compelling concepts that worked great. I agree that it may be more difficult, but if you read the site, we do explain the "how" regularly...
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Many people wouldn't even consider those sorts of projects "ads". Further, I can't help noticing that you still have "actual"/conventional ads all over your site. Clearly, companies find putting ads on your site worthwhile, even if they're less creative by doing so. You, in turn, find taking their money worthwhile enough show us those ads. Which approach brings in more money? Is the truth ultimately that conventional site ads still tend to work?
  - mmasnick 17y ago
    You're right. When many people don't consider those sorts of projects ads then we're doing our job right. Good ads shouldn't be considered ads, but they should be good content. And, yes, we do have conventional ads on the site -- and I'm guessing you're not a regular Techdirt reader (which is totally cool, by the way), but we've discussed this. Having conventional ads is a way to get companies to talk to us about the other offerings that we do. They basically act as lead generation for us because so many companies only think traditionally, they contact us about advertising, and we try to steer them towards other, smarter, programs. But we still let ads go through, even if we tell them that they won't be particularly effective. If people still want to give us money for no good reason, that's their mistake. But we are careful not to take intrusive ads. And, our ad revenue is less than 15% of the site's revenue (during Q4 it goes higher). So, no, the conventional ads are a waste, and I expect them to die out over time. But, for now, they're a great way to get companies to pay us to become leads for more creative solutions.
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      No, I'm not a Techdirt reader. But thank you for the explanation.
    - mrkurt 17y ago
      Do you not stay awake at night worrying about the effect that hybrid ad/content has on your ability to produce content honestly? In my preferred world, writers would never have any knowledge of which companies are paying the bills.
      - mmasnick 17y ago
        No. You seem to be confused. The content of our posts and the work we do remains editorially totally independent. These aren't "hybrid" deals. These are deals where we continue to produce our content as is -- with no changes or no requirements and no say from the companies who are sponsoring. That's on purpose -- and we're quite upfront about that to the companies we work with. Why would we risk our reputation by pulling punches, when it's our honest and forthright opinions that make the site what it is.
        Semiapies 17y ago
        As I said, I'm not a Techdirt reader. However, just going to http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation blind, I would not assume any such independence at all. Admittedly, that's a slightly different issue.
        mmasnick 17y ago
        We have total editorial independence. They get their logos on the top on the right, and the rightto list resources in the righthand bar. We have total editorial independence on the content of the actual blog posts, and have said that repeatedly. They get to see the posts, same as everyone else does. The only thing that Sun and Intel employees get is that when they comment on posts, their comments are highlighted. But that's it.
lotharbot 17y ago
"users fundamentally don't want the thing they make - ads" Millions of people who don't care one bit about sports watch the SuperBowl for the ads. Users fundamentally don't want annoying, content-blocking, misleading, irrelevant, privacy-compromising, browser-slowing ads. A couple of internet ad companies that have gotten away from this model are The Deck (http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/) and Project Wonderful (http://www.projectwonderful.com/ http://www.projectwonderful.com/).
- Semiapies 17y ago
  "Millions of people who don't care one bit about sports watch the SuperBowl for the ads." Millions? Really? I don't think so. If anything, they can pull up the ads on Hulu or YouTube if they really weren't otherwise interested in the game.
  - lotharbot 17y ago
    "Millions? Really? I don't think so." 106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-super-bowl-viewers-tune-in-for-the-commercials/ http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-sup...) 51% enjoy the commercials more than the game. Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions". Going back to the original point: the claim was made that people don't want to see ads. Yet ~54 million U.S. Superbowl viewers wanted to see the ads more than the game. The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)
    - Semiapies 17y ago
      "Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions"" That's an awful lot to sit through with no interest; not buying it. "The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)" And would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist if people didn't have to sit through commercials in live TV? The answer is obviously not. You're talking about a side-effect of a technological limitation. If commercials aired on a side-channel that could be blocked without losing the show, we'd never have seen the development of high-priced, hyped Superbowl commercials. These media are fundamentally different.
megablahblah 17y ago
He gave an example ... sponsor content, a.k.a. branded entertainment. It's the only thing that works in world of online advertising right now. But I think one of the main points is, be smart and use restraint when necessary. If a publisher comes to you and says "Hey, we have a new ad unit that takes over the page!" the advertiser should know that it's a bad idea and use restraint instead of buying up any new ad unit that's presented to them. If you look at mobile advertising, the click-through rates are 10 times better than online. Why? Mainly because there is less screen, so there is less ad clutter. So it's an approach that works. But basically, publishers and advertisers are lazy and instead of looking at data and figuring out creative ways to grow, they just spend more money to try to increase return.
- mrkurt 17y ago
  It blows my mind that people actually mention sponsored content as a feasible alternative. It's true that ad blocking will ultimately drive many sites there, but I really value the firewall we have between our writers and ad sales. Not only that, but I really don't want to read a site running ads-that-look-like-content. It saddens me that so many seem to miss the implications of doing this. It works ok for entertainment, but do you really want to read an article like "Why you shouldn't move your sites to the cloud, brought to you by IBM"?
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    Sponsorships are reasonable, but branded content and sites seems like a minefield.
  - rick888 17y ago
    "It blows my mind that people actually mention sponsored content as a feasible alternative. It's true that ad blocking will ultimately drive many sites there, but I really value the firewall we have between our writers and ad sales. Not only that, but I really don't want to read a site running ads-that-look-like-content. It saddens me that so many seem to miss the implications of doing this." Well, it saddens me that people running adblockers will force many sites to do this to survive.
axod 17y ago
>> " when users fundamentally don't want the thing they make - ads?" It'd be good if we stopped pretending everyone runs adblock. 99.5%+ of people have no issue with ads, and actually find them useful. That 0.5% who run adblock etc, really aren't worth worrying about much.
- rick888 17y ago
  "It'd be good if we stopped pretending everyone runs adblock. 99.5%+ of people have no issue with ads, and actually find them useful. That 0.5% who run adblock etc, really aren't worth worrying about much." Adblock plus on mozilla.org gets around 1,000,000 downloads per week. It may not be a huge percentage now, but if it continues at this rate, it will be.
- noss 17y ago
  How does one measure how often adblocking happens? I have a site with (in february) 37663 pageviews reported by google adsense, but 49581 pageviews reported by google analytics. If the mismatch there is from adblockers, then I must be an outlier. I hope it is that google didnt have ads to match and displayed some public information message instead. I'm not bitter or anything though. I block ads myself, mostly because I'm too afraid of accidentally clicking ads on a site of my own, and the punishment that can lead to.
- ewjordan 17y ago
  Ars (and most other nerd-centric sites) probably has a much higher percentage of users with AdBlock installed than the Internet as a whole. Then again, it also probably has a larger percentage of people that wouldn't pay any attention to the ads even if they were visible. From Ars' point of view it would be great if these people shut of their ad blockers, but the advertisers would probably be getting the short end of the stick, in that case, which would (over the long term) drive advertising prices down, etc. Ars would pick up some profits in the meantime, but solely at the expense of the advertisers, who are now getting screwed by paying for eyeballs that are worth less on average than the ones when people weren't shutting their ad blockers down. I'd certainly pay less for per-impression ads on a site that wouldn't show content to people with an ad blocker, for this very reason. It's a grand circle of life, and frankly, it's hard to say what second order effects any of these actions might have. It very well may be that the presence of ad blockers raises the average value of the eyeballs that do see the ads enough that advertising prices end up higher and Ars does better overall. It's equally possible that they're correct, the ad market hasn't adjusted to the presence of ad blockers yet, and they're still getting paid too little per-eyeball. I'm not sure. Neither are they. But in theory, at least, over the long term, if people with ad blockers really aren't paying any attention to ads anyways, the market should correct for this and the results for both advertisers and the sites providing ad space should approach the true value.
skorgu 17y ago
The article itself lists several examples of ads that provided value and didn't garner hatred. Tech journalism aside it's perfectly possible to make ads that rise above the perpetual noise of CONSUME! advertising we all live with. Look at things like Honda's "Cog" or Old Spice's "I'm on a horse". If there's a better example of why many people block ads than [1] I don't know what it is. I don't even bother to block ads anymore. I see a double-underlined word, a popup or a 90%-noise blogspam page and I just hit back. There's so much content out there that doesn't abuse your attention why bother with the noise? [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akj4z/get_your_mcdigg_on_reddit_if_you_ever/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akj4z/get_your_mcdigg_...
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Some ads may not garner hatred, but they don't provably garner sales. "Cog" may have been neat, but did it make you buy a Honda? On the other hand, the grating "Head On" ads spurred a lot of sales.
anonjon 17y ago
It is very easy to presuppose that the only way to get value from advertisers is through ads. But then you are assuming that only people who will sponsor your content are either add-networks, or corporations who will require that you use traditional forms of advertising (banner and sidebar ads). If you are simply interested in generating revenue from any corporate sponsor, the question becomes a little bit more open ended. I think that is what he is pointing out with his specific examples about UPS, Intel, and Sun. Not only were the companies sponsoring content, they were sponsoring a specific project that interested all parties involved (and disclosing that). The interesting subtext of this discussion is that as users we really hate the sketchy tactics put forth by ad-networks, and that as content providers, ad-networks are the 'easy' solution (easier than doing real legwork to get actual corporate sponsors).

mmasnick 17y ago

As the guy who wrote the post linked to above, I should note that in the post itself I describe multiple examples of how to come up with creative and compelling concepts that worked great. I agree that it may be more difficult, but if you read the site, we do explain the "how" regularly...

Semiapies 17y ago
Many people wouldn't even consider those sorts of projects "ads". Further, I can't help noticing that you still have "actual"/conventional ads all over your site. Clearly, companies find putting ads on your site worthwhile, even if they're less creative by doing so. You, in turn, find taking their money worthwhile enough show us those ads. Which approach brings in more money? Is the truth ultimately that conventional site ads still tend to work?
- mmasnick 17y ago
  You're right. When many people don't consider those sorts of projects ads then we're doing our job right. Good ads shouldn't be considered ads, but they should be good content. And, yes, we do have conventional ads on the site -- and I'm guessing you're not a regular Techdirt reader (which is totally cool, by the way), but we've discussed this. Having conventional ads is a way to get companies to talk to us about the other offerings that we do. They basically act as lead generation for us because so many companies only think traditionally, they contact us about advertising, and we try to steer them towards other, smarter, programs. But we still let ads go through, even if we tell them that they won't be particularly effective. If people still want to give us money for no good reason, that's their mistake. But we are careful not to take intrusive ads. And, our ad revenue is less than 15% of the site's revenue (during Q4 it goes higher). So, no, the conventional ads are a waste, and I expect them to die out over time. But, for now, they're a great way to get companies to pay us to become leads for more creative solutions.
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    No, I'm not a Techdirt reader. But thank you for the explanation.
  - mrkurt 17y ago
    Do you not stay awake at night worrying about the effect that hybrid ad/content has on your ability to produce content honestly? In my preferred world, writers would never have any knowledge of which companies are paying the bills.
    - mmasnick 17y ago
      No. You seem to be confused. The content of our posts and the work we do remains editorially totally independent. These aren't "hybrid" deals. These are deals where we continue to produce our content as is -- with no changes or no requirements and no say from the companies who are sponsoring. That's on purpose -- and we're quite upfront about that to the companies we work with. Why would we risk our reputation by pulling punches, when it's our honest and forthright opinions that make the site what it is.
      - Semiapies 17y ago
        As I said, I'm not a Techdirt reader. However, just going to http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation http://www.techdirt.com/index.php?edition=itinnovation blind, I would not assume any such independence at all. Admittedly, that's a slightly different issue.
        mmasnick 17y ago
        We have total editorial independence. They get their logos on the top on the right, and the rightto list resources in the righthand bar. We have total editorial independence on the content of the actual blog posts, and have said that repeatedly. They get to see the posts, same as everyone else does. The only thing that Sun and Intel employees get is that when they comment on posts, their comments are highlighted. But that's it.

lotharbot 17y ago

"users fundamentally don't want the thing they make - ads" Millions of people who don't care one bit about sports watch the SuperBowl for the ads. Users fundamentally don't want annoying, content-blocking, misleading, irrelevant, privacy-compromising, browser-slowing ads. A couple of internet ad companies that have gotten away from this model are The Deck (http://decknetwork.net/ http://decknetwork.net/) and Project Wonderful (http://www.projectwonderful.com/ http://www.projectwonderful.com/).

Semiapies 17y ago
"Millions of people who don't care one bit about sports watch the SuperBowl for the ads." Millions? Really? I don't think so. If anything, they can pull up the ads on Hulu or YouTube if they really weren't otherwise interested in the game.
- lotharbot 17y ago
  "Millions? Really? I don't think so." 106.5 million people in the US viewed the last Superbowl. According to Nielsen (http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-super-bowl-viewers-tune-in-for-the-commercials/ http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/survey-most-sup...) 51% enjoy the commercials more than the game. Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions". Going back to the original point: the claim was made that people don't want to see ads. Yet ~54 million U.S. Superbowl viewers wanted to see the ads more than the game. The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)
  - Semiapies 17y ago
    "Of the ~54 million viewers who enjoy the commercials more than the game, how many have no interest in the game at all? I'd wager it's a number rightly measured in "millions"" That's an awful lot to sit through with no interest; not buying it. "The problem isn't with "ads" per se, but with the way advertising is conducted on the internet (which is the point the original article made.)" And would the phenomenon of Superbowl commercials even exist if people didn't have to sit through commercials in live TV? The answer is obviously not. You're talking about a side-effect of a technological limitation. If commercials aired on a side-channel that could be blocked without losing the show, we'd never have seen the development of high-priced, hyped Superbowl commercials. These media are fundamentally different.

megablahblah 17y ago

He gave an example ... sponsor content, a.k.a. branded entertainment. It's the only thing that works in world of online advertising right now. But I think one of the main points is, be smart and use restraint when necessary. If a publisher comes to you and says "Hey, we have a new ad unit that takes over the page!" the advertiser should know that it's a bad idea and use restraint instead of buying up any new ad unit that's presented to them. If you look at mobile advertising, the click-through rates are 10 times better than online. Why? Mainly because there is less screen, so there is less ad clutter. So it's an approach that works. But basically, publishers and advertisers are lazy and instead of looking at data and figuring out creative ways to grow, they just spend more money to try to increase return.

mrkurt 17y ago
It blows my mind that people actually mention sponsored content as a feasible alternative. It's true that ad blocking will ultimately drive many sites there, but I really value the firewall we have between our writers and ad sales. Not only that, but I really don't want to read a site running ads-that-look-like-content. It saddens me that so many seem to miss the implications of doing this. It works ok for entertainment, but do you really want to read an article like "Why you shouldn't move your sites to the cloud, brought to you by IBM"?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Sponsorships are reasonable, but branded content and sites seems like a minefield.
- rick888 17y ago
  "It blows my mind that people actually mention sponsored content as a feasible alternative. It's true that ad blocking will ultimately drive many sites there, but I really value the firewall we have between our writers and ad sales. Not only that, but I really don't want to read a site running ads-that-look-like-content. It saddens me that so many seem to miss the implications of doing this." Well, it saddens me that people running adblockers will force many sites to do this to survive.

axod 17y ago

>> " when users fundamentally don't want the thing they make - ads?" It'd be good if we stopped pretending everyone runs adblock. 99.5%+ of people have no issue with ads, and actually find them useful. That 0.5% who run adblock etc, really aren't worth worrying about much.

rick888 17y ago
"It'd be good if we stopped pretending everyone runs adblock. 99.5%+ of people have no issue with ads, and actually find them useful. That 0.5% who run adblock etc, really aren't worth worrying about much." Adblock plus on mozilla.org gets around 1,000,000 downloads per week. It may not be a huge percentage now, but if it continues at this rate, it will be.
noss 17y ago
How does one measure how often adblocking happens? I have a site with (in february) 37663 pageviews reported by google adsense, but 49581 pageviews reported by google analytics. If the mismatch there is from adblockers, then I must be an outlier. I hope it is that google didnt have ads to match and displayed some public information message instead. I'm not bitter or anything though. I block ads myself, mostly because I'm too afraid of accidentally clicking ads on a site of my own, and the punishment that can lead to.
ewjordan 17y ago
Ars (and most other nerd-centric sites) probably has a much higher percentage of users with AdBlock installed than the Internet as a whole. Then again, it also probably has a larger percentage of people that wouldn't pay any attention to the ads even if they were visible. From Ars' point of view it would be great if these people shut of their ad blockers, but the advertisers would probably be getting the short end of the stick, in that case, which would (over the long term) drive advertising prices down, etc. Ars would pick up some profits in the meantime, but solely at the expense of the advertisers, who are now getting screwed by paying for eyeballs that are worth less on average than the ones when people weren't shutting their ad blockers down. I'd certainly pay less for per-impression ads on a site that wouldn't show content to people with an ad blocker, for this very reason. It's a grand circle of life, and frankly, it's hard to say what second order effects any of these actions might have. It very well may be that the presence of ad blockers raises the average value of the eyeballs that do see the ads enough that advertising prices end up higher and Ars does better overall. It's equally possible that they're correct, the ad market hasn't adjusted to the presence of ad blockers yet, and they're still getting paid too little per-eyeball. I'm not sure. Neither are they. But in theory, at least, over the long term, if people with ad blockers really aren't paying any attention to ads anyways, the market should correct for this and the results for both advertisers and the sites providing ad space should approach the true value.

skorgu 17y ago

The article itself lists several examples of ads that provided value and didn't garner hatred. Tech journalism aside it's perfectly possible to make ads that rise above the perpetual noise of CONSUME! advertising we all live with. Look at things like Honda's "Cog" or Old Spice's "I'm on a horse". If there's a better example of why many people block ads than [1] I don't know what it is. I don't even bother to block ads anymore. I see a double-underlined word, a popup or a 90%-noise blogspam page and I just hit back. There's so much content out there that doesn't abuse your attention why bother with the noise? [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akj4z/get_your_mcdigg_on_reddit_if_you_ever/ http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/akj4z/get_your_mcdigg_...

Semiapies 17y ago
Some ads may not garner hatred, but they don't provably garner sales. "Cog" may have been neat, but did it make you buy a Honda? On the other hand, the grating "Head On" ads spurred a lot of sales.

anonjon 17y ago

It is very easy to presuppose that the only way to get value from advertisers is through ads. But then you are assuming that only people who will sponsor your content are either add-networks, or corporations who will require that you use traditional forms of advertising (banner and sidebar ads). If you are simply interested in generating revenue from any corporate sponsor, the question becomes a little bit more open ended. I think that is what he is pointing out with his specific examples about UPS, Intel, and Sun. Not only were the companies sponsoring content, they were sponsoring a specific project that interested all parties involved (and disclosing that). The interesting subtext of this discussion is that as users we really hate the sketchy tactics put forth by ad-networks, and that as content providers, ad-networks are the 'easy' solution (easier than doing real legwork to get actual corporate sponsors).