Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

Recommended Sources

About Media Industry

BNET Media provides daily industry trends and news coverage with insights for managers and executives in publishing, print, broadcast, film, and online media. In addition to media company profiles, we bring you industry analysis on new partnerships, media products, mergers and acquisitions, labor and cost management, media buying, investments and a host of other important business issues.

After reading comments like the ones following this blog post by The New York Times Saul Hansell, it once again hits me upside the head just what a dire situation online media is in.

There are several reasons for this, some of which I’ll detail in future posts, but the one that jumps out from these blog comments is this: many consumers simply cannot get it through their heads that the content they’re getting for free has to be paid for. And if consumers aren’t going to be the ones who pay for it, they have to be willing to let publishers make money through advertising — and intrusive, expensive enough advertising to help them stay afloat. (Hansell’s post is about the Online Publishers Association’s new, larger ad units, that are going to start showing up on member sites in coming months. Members are the creme-de-la-creme of premium online content, including the Web presences of ABC News, Conde Nast, and yes, The New York Times.)

As a public service for BNET Media readers, below is a sampler of comments from allegedly erudite Times readers, followed with my own, Deary Abby-style replies:

Daniel writes: As someone who uses Firefox with the Adblock Plus add-on, I will not be worrying about ads, now [sic] matter how many pixels of my screen they may try to colonize.

Daniel, You also won’t be worrying about content, because you won’t have any to read.–Catharine

Eben Moglem writes: This is a good idea. It will cause more people to discover that AdBlock Plus will remove all the ads from any pages read by anyone using Firefox. More people will discover that the ads in digital media are totally optional, and they will tell all their friends how much better everything looks without any ads on it.

Dear Eben, And here’s another cool thing. When everything online stops existing because it doesn’t have any ads, then it really looks great. So minimalist!–Catharine

Dave Barnes writes: You want me to read ads? Then put them in newspapers and magazines where I cannot miss them.

Dear Dave, Great idea. If the Internet doesn’t have ads, then there won’t be online media, which will be such a boon for magazines and newspapers!! In case you haven’t heard, they’ve been having trouble lately.–Catharine

Fortunately, if you read further down in the comment stream, cooler heads slowly begin to prevail. As one Marc Brodeur put it: “Ads make your content free. Deal with it.”

Tags: Advertisement, Online Advertising, Catharine P. Taylor

Catharine P. Taylor has been covering digital media and advertising for almost 15 years and is a frequent speaker at conferences about media and advertising. She posts daily to BNET Media, writes the weekly Social Media Insider column for Mediapost and also has her own advertising blog, Adverganza.com. Follow her on Twitter or subscribe to the BNET Media Twitter feed.

BNET User Analysis

Voice your 2cents

Web Buzz:

(Almost) Everything You Could Want to Know About Commenting [Announcements]

Gizmodo - 30 days 3 hours 57 minutes ago

We keep talking about this awesome comment system of ours, but why should you bother using it? How do you even use it? Here's a little guide. If you've got questions it doesn't cover, just ask. I'm here to help. Hold it! I said I'm here to help, but before you rush off to type up a "HELP! I don't know what I'm doing!!!" comment or email, I...
Just An Online Minute... Is The Future F#cked -- Or Just Touched Inappropriately?

MediaPost - 34 days 9 hours 39 minutes ago

Free speech still exists in the U.S., but American companies have begun stepping up policies to determine what employees can share on social media sites in an effort to take control of the chatter.CBS appears to be on track to gross more Super Bowl advertising revenue this year than NBC did a year ago. And the network may not be done selling the...
30 Link Builders Discuss Backlink Analysis For Campaign Design – Part 1

Search Engine Land - 30 days 12 hours 13 minutes ago

We asked 30 link building experts 9 questions about backlink analysis… and got 20,000 words of response. This article is part 1 of a 3 part group interview series on backlink analysis. Part 1 covers how backlink analysis – of your site and your competitors’ sites, as it applies to link building campaign design. You’ll find each...
Online Video Ads vs Search Ads – The Fight of The Decade

ReelSEO Video Marketing - 34 days 12 hours 35 minutes ago

Search ads have been the champions of online ad spending for some time. Thanks to Google not only having the majority share of the search market, but also a major tie-in with Adwords and Adsense. But video ad spending is increasing rapidly. So one day these two online titans will face off in the annual tables and duel for supremacy. That fight...
The politics of ageing, political donations, Rundle on Tony Blair, housing prices through the roof

Crikey - 39 days 3 hours 45 minutes ago

For 10 years we've tapped into the knowledge and resources of our intelligent, plugged-in and have we mentioned good-looking readership when compiling lists and soliciting for tips and rumours. But last year The Guardian upped the crowd sourcing ante with its breathtaking MPs expenses project. The UK broadsheet managed to coax thousands of...

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

1

idiotparade

05/13/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

Stop making ugly, annoying, and moving ads, and we'll stop blocking them.

Learn to deal with the new medium in creative ways -- virals, entertaining videos, etc. are all new modes available that were not previously available -- and they are cheap.

You advertising industry people who think users are going to restrain themselves from using AdBlock to get rid of annoying flash ads and other eyesores out of some altruistic motive to save the internet are just deluding yourselves. After all, it was advertising that taught us all to be self-centered consumers to begin with, and surely you don't now expect us to shed the cynicism and selfishness you taught us for all these decades??

It's a new medium. If you really can't reinvent yourselves to find ways to reach consumers without pissing them off, you deserve to go out of business.
2

Cathy Taylor

05/13/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

You raise a good point, but only to a point. Could ads be better? Definitely. But it's literally impossible for the ad industry, or any industry, to hit homes as routinely as you suggest.

How many videos that want to go viral actually do? How many videos that aim to be entertaining fall flat? That's like asking the staff of SNL to be funny more. At times they succeed; at times they fail.

There's also no uniform opinion on most ads. I usually hate the lowest common denominator m.o. that dominates the Super Bowl, yet other people love them. Who then is the ultimate arbiter of what makes an ad "ugly" or "annoying"?

Plus, while I agree that ads could be better there's an acute cognitive dissonance in many of the discussions I here. People ask for better ads, while at the same time asking for unobtrusive ads. Stands to reason that an ad that is unnoticeable isn't a better ad.
3

Cathy Taylor

05/13/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

man...can't believe I just typed I "here." I hear. it's been a long day.
4

myson1

05/14/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

Cathy,

Good post. Fact is consumers have been flipping past magazine and newspaper ads or running to the fridge during commercial breaks for years. These behaviors will never change. Ads that intrude on the user experience - as many presently do - are not the answer. See my recent blog post at foliomag.com (Problem with Online Display). I really believe going forward it is a sales/content challenge publishers have to deal with. Consumers are consumers and the online industry shouldn't get too side-tracked by those out there that just don't like advertising. It's an objection that can and needs to be overcome.

Joe Guerriero
5

thedigitalist

05/14/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

"Stands to reason that an ad that is unnoticeable isn't a better ad."

Really? I would say it stands to reason that an ad that pisses off potential customers isn't a better ad.

Child-development specialists say that it's a bad idea to teach your children that broccoli is a distasteful thing that must be endured before they can eat dessert. I would say the advertising industry has the same problem. Their goal should not be to guilt consumers into viewing their ads out of a sense of obligation, but rather to connect them with products and services they want to buy. If you do that, everybody wins. If you don't, no one does (it's called stakeholder theory).

And I'm sick of hearing that media consumers are "freeloading". We ARE paying you, with our time and attention. Don't think that has value? Then why else would advertisers pay for it?

It's a three-way transaction. And if advertisers don't keep up their end of the bargain, it can't work.

More thoughts here: http://thedigitalists.com/2009/02/10/free-or-how-to-give-away-the-store-without-giving-away-the-store/
6

bnetbob

05/15/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

Yes advertising is what pays for the content, and they also can be content if well done. But advertisers and their creatives perhaps need to understand the market better.

I, too, dislike the blinking, visually noisy ads that distract from my reading. When I read a print publication, I often will look at select ads that are well done or that are for a product that I might be, but they do not jump in front of my article. I do the same online, when the ad is quiet and informative.

Another issue - my concern with the two way nature of the electronic media. When I read print ads, I do so knowing that the advertisers or their agents are not following me. I rarely click through an online ad, because I don't really know where it is coming from.

In other words - online advertising needs to mature in terms of its relationship with the customer. In my public relations business I work hard to convince my clients that it is all about their customer and the customer needs. For the most part advertising online, with all its tricks and tools, it is all about the advertiser right now.

Bob Stovall, Colorado Springs
7

Cathy Taylor

05/18/09 | Report as spam

RE: Times' Reader Comments Show Ignorance About Online Ads

Hi Bob,

It would be great if some people in online advertising would read your comments. The biggest problem with the way many users would like things to be, as opposed to how they are, is that the two-way nature of electronic media is supposed to make the ads you see more relevant. The cookie is meant to serve as a way of targeting ads that are more focused on user interests instead of ads being served up in huge demographic buckets.

Cathy