10 ms·

Really interesting to see these numbers. I've been reading DF for years and years, and its is the only advertising model I've encountered that doesn't grate. Hi

by cmyr 12y ago

Really interesting to see these numbers. I've been reading DF for years and years, and its is the only advertising model I've encountered that doesn't grate. His advertising is considerate, audience appropriate, and vetted. I feel good supporting his advertisers, because I feel good supporting him, and because they're just consistently things I'm happy to hear about. I would really love to see more independent journalists follow his model, although obviously his market is more suited to this model than some others are. Still, I think there's a lot to learn, here.

daigoba66 12y ago
I think another reason the DF advertising model is so successful, for both the publisher and the advertiser, is that the advertisements don't distract from the publisher's content. And in this case it plays really well with the primary means of publication for DF, RSS. Consider "traditional media": radio, television, and print. Yeah, we all love to hate commercials, etc. But compare it to the Internet, which is a complete cesspool. I use my hometown newspaper as a example (http://www.ajc.com/ http://www.ajc.com/). Many websites are completely unreadable, and/or require a supercomputer to fully render and execute the CSS/JS. And I believe it's fairly common knowledge now that these types of advertisements are hugely ineffective for the advertiser.
- saddington 12y ago
  This is one of the reasons I've been a fan and reader of his blog... I feel like his model really "works" and I don't get offended at all. John has the right to decline any offer to advertise... (obviously) and keeps the bar high.
jonas21 12y ago
I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) and blurs the line between advertising and editorial content. As mentioned in the article: > the cost today ranges between $8,000 – $10,000 dollars per placement and you get to write your own post, essentially Maybe this isn't a big deal for DF, but I can imagine this would lead to a total lack of trust for other independent journalists.
- dilap 12y ago
  It's a valid concern, but honestly I think the distorting effects are probably much less than e.g., having to chase clickbait topics for CPM advertising or having Carlos Slim be your largest single investor, etc.
  - armandososa 12y ago
    You piqued my curiosity. What's the Carlos Slim comment related to?
    - gyardley 12y ago
      He's probably referring to the New York Times.
      - dilap 12y ago
        Yup.
- Moto7451 12y ago
  PBS and NPR have to deal with this issue every year and their solution is pretty simple. They report it as they would want to, mention that X Co sponsored them in the past/present, and don't take their advertising dollars for that piece.
  - jonas21 12y ago
    There's a big difference between saying "this segment is sponsored by X Co" and letting X Co write their own endorsement that they can then quote as a testimonial from you.
    - oddevan 12y ago
      If you're referring to Desk quoting Gruber on their home page, they quoted from Gruber's "thank you" post which, while it borrows a lot from the original sponsor-written post, is still written by Gruber himself.
saddington 12y ago
Many have continued to try and some have really found it to work. I advertised on a number of other blogs that have the exact same model: http://blog.desk.pm/2014-yir/ http://blog.desk.pm/2014-yir/ I was very happy with those results too!
camillomiller 12y ago
John's model is unique, though, not scalable and heavily gruber-dependent. It's something we can analyze as a particular phenomena, not a way to reinterpret advertising on the Web.
- saddington 12y ago
  I think Gruber is definitely unique and if he "disappeared" it would be hard to replace him. In other words, what makes DF "work" is Gruber... and if he wasn't there... it wouldn't really work. It makes you wonder about the sustainability of "people-centric" companies. I have thought often about this in terms of my own projects... how many of them would be sustainable without my very explicit presence?
- arrrg 12y ago
  Look at podcasts. They are nearly all, in essence, using exactly Gruber’s model. It seems to me as though there is practically nothing else there … (I’m not sure exactly where this podcast model is coming from. I think I first heard it – in an incarnation that is nearly totally similar to what DF does – on Dan Benjamin’s 5by5 network. That genesis would even sort of make sense, as Dan Benjamin are friends and used to be long-time co-hosts of a podcast. I obviously can’t recall exact dates, so I’m not even sure who came first there, actually. Now other podcasts and podcast networks are doing it, too.) What that means is this: The actual hosts of the podcast read the ad in their voice, though they still say that it’s an ad read (that’s analogous to putting the ad directly on the website in the website layout together with the other content and in the RSS feed, though still marking it as sponsored content). Nearly all will also add in little personal touches. Those can be widely diverse, from a simple, slightly personalised thank you (as Gruber writes), to stories about how the hosts use the product or why they like it, all the way to specially produced editorial content for the sponsor (as Startup and Reply All from Gimlet Media are doing by, for example, interviewing their sponsors and talking to them about their business). That’s practically identical to what Gruber does, just in another medium (and maybe the podcasts were even first and Gruber just cribbed from them and adopted it to his medium). I honestly think this is at least somewhat workable on a wider scale. Not a billion dollar scale, sure, but a small operation making a small profit with a couple well paid staff? Sure, that’s very imaginable and partly already sort of happening.

by cmyr 12y ago

daigoba66 12y ago

I think another reason the DF advertising model is so successful, for both the publisher and the advertiser, is that the advertisements don't distract from the publisher's content. And in this case it plays really well with the primary means of publication for DF, RSS. Consider "traditional media": radio, television, and print. Yeah, we all love to hate commercials, etc. But compare it to the Internet, which is a complete cesspool. I use my hometown newspaper as a example (http://www.ajc.com/ http://www.ajc.com/). Many websites are completely unreadable, and/or require a supercomputer to fully render and execute the CSS/JS. And I believe it's fairly common knowledge now that these types of advertisements are hugely ineffective for the advertiser.

saddington 12y ago
This is one of the reasons I've been a fan and reader of his blog... I feel like his model really "works" and I don't get offended at all. John has the right to decline any offer to advertise... (obviously) and keeps the bar high.

jonas21 12y ago

I'd rather not. It introduces a pretty big conflict of interest (for example, Gruber would probably think twice before writing something negative about a former sponsor when he's on the record endorsing them) and blurs the line between advertising and editorial content. As mentioned in the article: > the cost today ranges between $8,000 – $10,000 dollars per placement and you get to write your own post, essentially Maybe this isn't a big deal for DF, but I can imagine this would lead to a total lack of trust for other independent journalists.

dilap 12y ago
It's a valid concern, but honestly I think the distorting effects are probably much less than e.g., having to chase clickbait topics for CPM advertising or having Carlos Slim be your largest single investor, etc.
- armandososa 12y ago
  You piqued my curiosity. What's the Carlos Slim comment related to?
  - gyardley 12y ago
    He's probably referring to the New York Times.
    - dilap 12y ago
      Yup.
Moto7451 12y ago
PBS and NPR have to deal with this issue every year and their solution is pretty simple. They report it as they would want to, mention that X Co sponsored them in the past/present, and don't take their advertising dollars for that piece.
- jonas21 12y ago
  There's a big difference between saying "this segment is sponsored by X Co" and letting X Co write their own endorsement that they can then quote as a testimonial from you.
  - oddevan 12y ago
    If you're referring to Desk quoting Gruber on their home page, they quoted from Gruber's "thank you" post which, while it borrows a lot from the original sponsor-written post, is still written by Gruber himself.

saddington 12y ago

Many have continued to try and some have really found it to work. I advertised on a number of other blogs that have the exact same model: http://blog.desk.pm/2014-yir/ http://blog.desk.pm/2014-yir/ I was very happy with those results too!

camillomiller 12y ago

John's model is unique, though, not scalable and heavily gruber-dependent. It's something we can analyze as a particular phenomena, not a way to reinterpret advertising on the Web.

saddington 12y ago
I think Gruber is definitely unique and if he "disappeared" it would be hard to replace him. In other words, what makes DF "work" is Gruber... and if he wasn't there... it wouldn't really work. It makes you wonder about the sustainability of "people-centric" companies. I have thought often about this in terms of my own projects... how many of them would be sustainable without my very explicit presence?
arrrg 12y ago
Look at podcasts. They are nearly all, in essence, using exactly Gruber’s model. It seems to me as though there is practically nothing else there … (I’m not sure exactly where this podcast model is coming from. I think I first heard it – in an incarnation that is nearly totally similar to what DF does – on Dan Benjamin’s 5by5 network. That genesis would even sort of make sense, as Dan Benjamin are friends and used to be long-time co-hosts of a podcast. I obviously can’t recall exact dates, so I’m not even sure who came first there, actually. Now other podcasts and podcast networks are doing it, too.) What that means is this: The actual hosts of the podcast read the ad in their voice, though they still say that it’s an ad read (that’s analogous to putting the ad directly on the website in the website layout together with the other content and in the RSS feed, though still marking it as sponsored content). Nearly all will also add in little personal touches. Those can be widely diverse, from a simple, slightly personalised thank you (as Gruber writes), to stories about how the hosts use the product or why they like it, all the way to specially produced editorial content for the sponsor (as Startup and Reply All from Gimlet Media are doing by, for example, interviewing their sponsors and talking to them about their business). That’s practically identical to what Gruber does, just in another medium (and maybe the podcasts were even first and Gruber just cribbed from them and adopted it to his medium). I honestly think this is at least somewhat workable on a wider scale. Not a billion dollar scale, sure, but a small operation making a small profit with a couple well paid staff? Sure, that’s very imaginable and partly already sort of happening.