Is running ads on a programming blog worth it?(danluu.com)
danluu.com
Is running ads on a programming blog worth it?
http://danluu.com/blog-ads
111 comments
You should read about the "third person effect": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-person_effect
"The Third-person effect [1] hypothesis or Third-person perception or Web Third-person effect [2] predicts that people tend to perceive that mass communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases; additionally, because of this perception, people tend to take action to counteract the messages’ influence. The Third-person effect hypothesis often manifests itself through an individual’s overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves."
"The Third-person effect [1] hypothesis or Third-person perception or Web Third-person effect [2] predicts that people tend to perceive that mass communicated media messages have a greater effect on others than on themselves, based on personal biases; additionally, because of this perception, people tend to take action to counteract the messages’ influence. The Third-person effect hypothesis often manifests itself through an individual’s overestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on the generalized other, or an underestimation of the effect of a mass communicated message on themselves."
I see what you are driving at. However, Google is a $33 billion company, yet I made them exactly $0 through ads, which is their primary business. In my mind that means that someone must be clicking on those ads, and I'm sure it's not me.
Google earns money just because someone shows you the ad. And if I'm not mistaken, when you click in some ad, the site showing it also earns money.
So, basically, people spend money anyway, but you just "reward" the site when you click on it.
So, basically, people spend money anyway, but you just "reward" the site when you click on it.
You are a set of eyeballs or "impressions." Maybe you won't click on the ad, but you were displayed it, which is a success in and of itself.
[deleted]
I get 3 kinds of ads mostly - ads for scammy crap no one in their right mind would click on, ads for expensive enterprise software packages, and ads for stuff I just bought.
I'm not the decision maker at work. I can't influence a decision on the purchase of a $XX,XXX software package. The ads for things I've already bought are particularly sad, because it's too late. I'm not buying another bunk bed, but after I bought a bunk bed (with no help from advertising engines) I spent the next month ignoring ads for bunk beds.
Someone is not getting their money's worth on these ads.
I'm not the decision maker at work. I can't influence a decision on the purchase of a $XX,XXX software package. The ads for things I've already bought are particularly sad, because it's too late. I'm not buying another bunk bed, but after I bought a bunk bed (with no help from advertising engines) I spent the next month ignoring ads for bunk beds.
Someone is not getting their money's worth on these ads.
I tend to think that remarketing actually hurts many times. I hate visiting a site to consider a product, only to then be followed around the web by banners for that project for days after. It makes me hate the product.
There's just something dreadful about having your decision making so directly influenced. It's sort of a "why are you trying to push this thing on me? Is it not good enough to stand on its own merit?
I have a sneaky suspicion that the same is true for these popups you see all over the internet. I have a basic rule: If there is a popup, I just close the tab. I don't care how good the content is. It can't be that good if the webmaster needs to catch my attention like a needy girlfriend by flashing stuff in my eyes. Close and gone.
I wonder if I'm in such a minority such that it doesn't matter, or if this is intentional segmentation or just plain stupidity on the side of webmasters.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the same is true for these popups you see all over the internet. I have a basic rule: If there is a popup, I just close the tab. I don't care how good the content is. It can't be that good if the webmaster needs to catch my attention like a needy girlfriend by flashing stuff in my eyes. Close and gone.
I wonder if I'm in such a minority such that it doesn't matter, or if this is intentional segmentation or just plain stupidity on the side of webmasters.
You are doing them a great service. You are self-selecting as someone who's not going to click on ads at all, and don't waste their resources. I end up using the site and either ignoring or blocking the ads. In fact, I wonder if putting up a giant popup right as you first enter the site is a good way to make more money by only having visitors that don't mind ads.
Excuse my gratuitous comment, but I'm just happy to see that I'm not alone. I too _deeply_ despise ads, and popups, and anything that I need to dismiss to get to the content.
However, how can a blogging programmer make some money off its blog then? Donations or micro-donations (think Flattr/Gratipay/etc) is the only idea I can think of.
However, how can a blogging programmer make some money off its blog then? Donations or micro-donations (think Flattr/Gratipay/etc) is the only idea I can think of.
I'd go with Affiliate links and mark them as such. This is a matter of trust, because there's clearly a conflict of interest. If you recommend something and get money for the recommendation, how good are your recommendations after all?
But if you have a trustworthy relationship to your readers, it's usually appreciated if they get tips on books or software that helps them. If you get a few bucks for a recommendation, everybody wins.
Also, you could start your own product (e. g. an ebook or a tutorial about something), although this requires clearly more effort.
The advantage of affiliate is that you get to select the products you recommend, unlike with most ads.
But if you have a trustworthy relationship to your readers, it's usually appreciated if they get tips on books or software that helps them. If you get a few bucks for a recommendation, everybody wins.
Also, you could start your own product (e. g. an ebook or a tutorial about something), although this requires clearly more effort.
The advantage of affiliate is that you get to select the products you recommend, unlike with most ads.
Turn this around: what would cause you or anyone else to pay money to a blogger? When did you last do this yourself?
My girlfriend has a blog (on nail polish, of all things), and even not very notorious bloggers have "free samples" sent to them, and the more notorious ones certainly do have monetary offers.
Same to hardware reviewers, product reviewers, etcetera, etcetera.
Consumers themselves paying, I don't see it that often, but there's the "donations" model that seems to be popular among streamers, etc., I haven't donated myself but I could see myself doing so.
Same to hardware reviewers, product reviewers, etcetera, etcetera.
Consumers themselves paying, I don't see it that often, but there's the "donations" model that seems to be popular among streamers, etc., I haven't donated myself but I could see myself doing so.
It's highly unlikely I'd pay money to read blogs. Maybe if WordPress had a pay wall like the NYTimes, and if there were an exceptionally high number of good blogs on it, I'd pay something like $15 a year to read all of WordPress. Or, better yet, something like WordPress, but focused on a topic I was interested in.
But in general there's too many mediocre and crappy blogs to say I'd pay money for them. Seriously, why would I pay money to read the millionth article about some random guy just discovering Haskell?
IMO, maintaining a blog is like having a Facebook account.
But in general there's too many mediocre and crappy blogs to say I'd pay money for them. Seriously, why would I pay money to read the millionth article about some random guy just discovering Haskell?
IMO, maintaining a blog is like having a Facebook account.
I've the same. If I get a popup or an overlay I simply close the tab whatever was on it. Without even thinking. If I notice an advert I think scumbag company, how can they think that interrupting what I am here for is more likely to make me buy their thing and I make an active effort to avoid anything they sell from then on. It's not even concious, it just happens.
> If I search Google for something, and the result comes up as both an ad and a non-ad, I click on the non-ad link
Slightly off-topic, but I do something a little different as my own "screw you" to stupid advertisers.
If I see an advert in my search results that I'll find useful, I don't mind clicking it. For example if I search "London cinema" and a certain cinema has paid to be up there that I'm actually interested in, why not click it. If they were already in the organic results above the fold, I'll click organic to save them their ad budget.
However if I see an advert that's targeting their own brand name that I just searched (for example if I searched "Y Combinator" and saw YC had both top organic spot and a paid ad above) then I'll specifically click on the paid spot to cost them money. Just because you'd be amazed how many people in how many ad agencies make themselves look good to clients by using their own brands to push up results. Yes, if you have a paid advert for when people are already looking specifically for you of course you'll bump up your overall performance for search budgets.
(There is an argument - which may be correct at times - for needing to bid on your own brand / product names so as to outbid competitors aiming for them, but I've never yet been shown any data to actually justify the cost.)
Slightly off-topic, but I do something a little different as my own "screw you" to stupid advertisers.
If I see an advert in my search results that I'll find useful, I don't mind clicking it. For example if I search "London cinema" and a certain cinema has paid to be up there that I'm actually interested in, why not click it. If they were already in the organic results above the fold, I'll click organic to save them their ad budget.
However if I see an advert that's targeting their own brand name that I just searched (for example if I searched "Y Combinator" and saw YC had both top organic spot and a paid ad above) then I'll specifically click on the paid spot to cost them money. Just because you'd be amazed how many people in how many ad agencies make themselves look good to clients by using their own brands to push up results. Yes, if you have a paid advert for when people are already looking specifically for you of course you'll bump up your overall performance for search budgets.
(There is an argument - which may be correct at times - for needing to bid on your own brand / product names so as to outbid competitors aiming for them, but I've never yet been shown any data to actually justify the cost.)
I have done a few tests on this brand bidding thing.
A couple of writeups can be found at:
http://www.eanalytica.com/blog/unforseen-risks-when-stopping...
http://www.eanalytica.com/blog/Richard-Fergie-at-Biddable-Wo...
A couple of writeups can be found at:
http://www.eanalytica.com/blog/unforseen-risks-when-stopping...
http://www.eanalytica.com/blog/Richard-Fergie-at-Biddable-Wo...
Thanks, good links but you don't demonstrate (though I presume in your case its the case, otherwise you made a poor decision) to what extent you lose clicks by stopping vs. the money you waste by bidding on your brand.
Can't remember the exact figures any more, but for the first example (where we did stop brand) it was something like for every £1 spent on brand AdWords generated £3 from brand queries (organic + PPC).
At this ROI the money could be better spent in other channels. But as you can read in the post there were unforeseen consequences which I can go into more detail on this if you email me.
I've also seen it where £1 spent on brand generated £18 in incremental revenue so in this case it was worth keeping on.
At this ROI the money could be better spent in other channels. But as you can read in the post there were unforeseen consequences which I can go into more detail on this if you email me.
I've also seen it where £1 spent on brand generated £18 in incremental revenue so in this case it was worth keeping on.
Lately I find that if I am shopping for something through google, I do click on relevant ads (often for a listing on ebay, amazon or flipkart), along with other standard search results. Of recent, I have been finding that the ads being shown are sometimes more relevant than the actual search results. (Ad targeting getting better or google making search results worse?). Maybe e-commerce websites are more efficient in India?(India is going through a e-commerce boom right now)
On the other hand, I rarely if ever click on site and blog ads (that make it through Noscript). Guess that is why Google has the most ad revenue on the internet (even though facebook arguably has more user data and people spend more time on it on average).
On the other hand, I rarely if ever click on site and blog ads (that make it through Noscript). Guess that is why Google has the most ad revenue on the internet (even though facebook arguably has more user data and people spend more time on it on average).
Yes, I am the same. I never, ever click on ads. If an ad happens to interest me (this happens extremely rarely) I google the product rather than clicking on the ad. For me however, I don't think it has anything to do with me not wanting to be influenced by ads and everything to do with the legacy of shady internet ads. Growing up you learned that clicking ads on the internet will get your computer infected or similar so you learned that all ads were shady and to stay away from them. Although I today know this is not always the case, the imprint remains.
I'll click the ad if it is for a company I don't like and have to use. For example, particular ISPs.
What I have noticed recently is that if I want to buy something very specialized (say, a good spectrometer), it is very hard to find the sellers. The internet is usually no good and needs major effort to find anything at all. Information is usually handed down within companies and organisations, and very hard to come by otherwise.
I wish I got some advertisements from these companies so I knew what offers existed at all, instead of more advertisements for things I know exist and I don't want or need (about any consumer product at all).
I wish I got some advertisements from these companies so I knew what offers existed at all, instead of more advertisements for things I know exist and I don't want or need (about any consumer product at all).
Perhaps this is where a good blog about the market for spectrometers would be useful, and if the suppliers were far-sighted enough is one of those cases where affiliate links, correctly and honestly put out, would work.
I don't know your profession (Ok now I do - vulcanology - cool!) but if you need this equipment and need to search hard for it, others are too.
I don't know your profession (Ok now I do - vulcanology - cool!) but if you need this equipment and need to search hard for it, others are too.
I would add this: you call yourself a moocher for not clicking on ads, but I would add that clicking on ads isn't enough. You need to justify the advertisement by buying the relevant product, otherwise over time people will think that Google ads have trouble leading to customers, and maybe X is better.
Personally, I think if someone does something for me, I'd rather pay them directly and become a customer. But until then, I am well aware that the real clients are advertisers, not me.
Personally, I think if someone does something for me, I'd rather pay them directly and become a customer. But until then, I am well aware that the real clients are advertisers, not me.
It's also easy for me to ignore ads on the web. I am always baffled by those commenters on HN who claim they would rather pay for content rather than seeing ads or those that seem to have a deep aversion for ads. For me, ads are so easy to ignore that those point of views are hard to understand.
That’s not the only thing that paying for content gives you, though. Paying for content gives you a right to the content, it gives you a power over the content, just like paying taxes gives you a vote and power over the country’s governance. If you don’t pay for it, then you can’t really expect the website to be working for you.
It's not the ads that bother me [if they're not moving/sounding or actively drawing my attention]. It's the implicit cross site tracking.
If someone hosts their own ad content, I'm far more likely to click it if it's relevant (and won't block it, which is my default for anything cross-site).
If someone hosts their own ad content, I'm far more likely to click it if it's relevant (and won't block it, which is my default for anything cross-site).
[deleted]
I am happy to pay for content because people need to make a living. I don't block ads but I would be glad if I could pay to turn ads off.
I'm also happy to pay a site for content, but I have to point out that we all pay for both the ads and content.
When you pay directly you cut out a layer of middlemen (the ad company / broker) so I see subscription-based sites as more efficient than ad-supported ones.
When you pay directly you cut out a layer of middlemen (the ad company / broker) so I see subscription-based sites as more efficient than ad-supported ones.
And then there are those pages (eg [1]) where I am unable to see anything at all at first glance because of these instincts. :)
[1] http://www.mediamarkt.de/ (sells electronics)
[1] http://www.mediamarkt.de/ (sells electronics)
[deleted]
Sometimes the ad link (like on bing for example.. for a new machine with IE) for a search like Google Chrome actually goes to some side-site that tries to pack extra bloatware or malware with it.
Overall marketed links seem less trustworthy than something high ranking by its own merit.
Overall marketed links seem less trustworthy than something high ranking by its own merit.
[deleted]
They don't care that you aren't clicking. The ad industry is moving towards impressions. That you are seeing the content.
Interesting. Got any good reads on this?
I work in the industry, so I kind of picked this up through osmosis. I will ask someone at work if they have any good literature.
"I have a sneaking suspicion that certain groups of people are just much less susceptible to ads."
Especially a demographic that is more likely to use ad blocking browser plugins.
Especially a demographic that is more likely to use ad blocking browser plugins.
> Especially a demographic that is more likely to use ad blocking browser plugins.
I don't think it's just that. It's a demographic that is largely responsible for running ads on various platforms (websites, apps, etc). This same demographic will inherently understand ads, how they work, how they are usually not what you are looking for, what types of manipulations are involved, etc.
I never click on any ads either, although I don't employ any ad-block programs (so I suppose if a site is getting paid for impressions rather than clicks, then they are monetizing in some small way off my traffic).
It's not that I despise ads, like some folks are mentioning. I've just come to tune them out; I don't even really notice them on sites I visit anymore.
At the office, however, a large part of my dayjob is invested in learning how to best position ad content, and re-target users to entice them into making purchases.
Ads are a necessity. A significant portion of the online-population does not employ the same product search capabilities as the folks here on HN -- and because of this we've found ads are a major driver of traffic to ecommerce websites... I don't see them going away any time soon.
I don't think it's just that. It's a demographic that is largely responsible for running ads on various platforms (websites, apps, etc). This same demographic will inherently understand ads, how they work, how they are usually not what you are looking for, what types of manipulations are involved, etc.
I never click on any ads either, although I don't employ any ad-block programs (so I suppose if a site is getting paid for impressions rather than clicks, then they are monetizing in some small way off my traffic).
It's not that I despise ads, like some folks are mentioning. I've just come to tune them out; I don't even really notice them on sites I visit anymore.
At the office, however, a large part of my dayjob is invested in learning how to best position ad content, and re-target users to entice them into making purchases.
Ads are a necessity. A significant portion of the online-population does not employ the same product search capabilities as the folks here on HN -- and because of this we've found ads are a major driver of traffic to ecommerce websites... I don't see them going away any time soon.
I'm sure if we had a histogram of clicking ads versus IQ, it would be interesting but not particularly surprising. Versus age would be interesting too.
Just viewing the ad will subtly affect us all, however 'immune' we think we are. If anything, the ads will enhance brand recognition...
Speaking as someone who runs several sites which cater to several demographics, you are very correct.
No. There are two main points for a programming blog - to keep your own notes in one place, and to try and raise your profile / build an audience to make the next contract or pay review a much happier experience.
Neither of those are helped by ads, and the latter is probably negatively impacted.
You have really impressive views afaik - which is why someone probably called you. But even so, you are thinking a rough likely income of 140usd a month. It's really hard to put the logical business case, but being the guy in the department who gets 100K views on his blog is easily worth 1700 usd at the annual pay review (read patio11 post on this subject).
If you are a contractor or can build a network from the blog that 1700 pa is going to get wiped out in one deal.
Stick a mailchimp form on your blog and keep writing interesting stuff.
Neither of those are helped by ads, and the latter is probably negatively impacted.
You have really impressive views afaik - which is why someone probably called you. But even so, you are thinking a rough likely income of 140usd a month. It's really hard to put the logical business case, but being the guy in the department who gets 100K views on his blog is easily worth 1700 usd at the annual pay review (read patio11 post on this subject).
If you are a contractor or can build a network from the blog that 1700 pa is going to get wiped out in one deal.
Stick a mailchimp form on your blog and keep writing interesting stuff.
Agreed.
I suppose even Jeff Atwood's blog ultimately had the most impact when he used it to drive the initial traffic to StackOverflow.
I suppose even Jeff Atwood's blog ultimately had the most impact when he used it to drive the initial traffic to StackOverflow.
There are two main points for a programming blog - to keep your own notes in one place, and to try and raise your profile / build an audience to make the next contract or pay review a much happier experience.
If one subscribes to your extremely limited view of what a "programming blog" should be or aspire to be, and what its author(s)' goals are or should be, then maybe this is reasonable. But I don't find that at all convincing.
If you are a contractor or can build a network from the blog that 1700 pa is going to get wiped out in one deal.
No... it'll still be there. And it'll be there if you have a bad month -- or year -- and you end up depending more than you'd want on that otherwise paltry sum.
I'm not saying this is without merit. I'm just saying it's incredibly short-sighted. I like to look at the big picture as well, but to suggest that money you might bring in with minimal impact is necessarily useless in the face of the potential to bring in more money in other (largely or totally unrelated) ways strikes me as seriously out of touch with the lows reality can drop on your doorstep.
Stick a mailchimp form on your blog and keep writing interesting stuff.
This is at least much more reasonable than making blanket statements that start with "No."
If one subscribes to your extremely limited view of what a "programming blog" should be or aspire to be, and what its author(s)' goals are or should be, then maybe this is reasonable. But I don't find that at all convincing.
If you are a contractor or can build a network from the blog that 1700 pa is going to get wiped out in one deal.
No... it'll still be there. And it'll be there if you have a bad month -- or year -- and you end up depending more than you'd want on that otherwise paltry sum.
I'm not saying this is without merit. I'm just saying it's incredibly short-sighted. I like to look at the big picture as well, but to suggest that money you might bring in with minimal impact is necessarily useless in the face of the potential to bring in more money in other (largely or totally unrelated) ways strikes me as seriously out of touch with the lows reality can drop on your doorstep.
Stick a mailchimp form on your blog and keep writing interesting stuff.
This is at least much more reasonable than making blanket statements that start with "No."
Well the No was a direct answer to a direct question. :-)
And I think that putting ads onto an otherwise nice and coherent personal site sends out all the wrong signals (it makes us judge this not as a personal site but as a commercial entity - which demands higher production standards (and oddly lowers the trustworthiness of his opinions on Intel die layouts etc). The small amount of advertising income is unlikely to ever pay for that trust loss - and if the OP is ever likely to find that income vital then they should fight for a pay rise today.
I am negative on the value of broadcast style advertising - I would say that going for advertising dollars when you don't think they will pay for the young graduate you really ought to be hiring to do ad sales by phone is a bad idea. I really cannot see advertising being democratised by giving tiny slices to smaller and smaller outlets. Maybe affiliation sales will work at those levels but probably not.
And I think that putting ads onto an otherwise nice and coherent personal site sends out all the wrong signals (it makes us judge this not as a personal site but as a commercial entity - which demands higher production standards (and oddly lowers the trustworthiness of his opinions on Intel die layouts etc). The small amount of advertising income is unlikely to ever pay for that trust loss - and if the OP is ever likely to find that income vital then they should fight for a pay rise today.
I am negative on the value of broadcast style advertising - I would say that going for advertising dollars when you don't think they will pay for the young graduate you really ought to be hiring to do ad sales by phone is a bad idea. I really cannot see advertising being democratised by giving tiny slices to smaller and smaller outlets. Maybe affiliation sales will work at those levels but probably not.
I have tried for two years to monetize my programming blog without making $100 in that entire time while I make a nice living from ads on my other sites.
I save RAW hard drives via a post I wrote 2 years ago. It's not really a programming post on my programming blog but like forums, you have little control over the demographic that ends up flocking to your blog. Especially if it is eclectic like mine.
There are thousands of visitors daily to the post and I get emails and try to answer comments everyday.
Ads, affiliate links, Amazon, eBay, Adsense, BSA, direct ads, CPA, CPM, nothing works on my programming blog with thousands of visitors each day. Extensive a/b testing is inconclusive due to lack of actions.
So now I only have a bitcoin address in that particular post and hope one day to get something from that :)
Ads do not work for all niches on the internet. Unless, of course, you want to deceive your users and trick them into clicking on something that is not what they think it is. That always works, for awhile at least.
In the meantime, I'll keep helping the people who end up there for free as best I can because in the end, that is in line with what I have hoped the internet would be.
I save RAW hard drives via a post I wrote 2 years ago. It's not really a programming post on my programming blog but like forums, you have little control over the demographic that ends up flocking to your blog. Especially if it is eclectic like mine.
There are thousands of visitors daily to the post and I get emails and try to answer comments everyday.
Ads, affiliate links, Amazon, eBay, Adsense, BSA, direct ads, CPA, CPM, nothing works on my programming blog with thousands of visitors each day. Extensive a/b testing is inconclusive due to lack of actions.
So now I only have a bitcoin address in that particular post and hope one day to get something from that :)
Ads do not work for all niches on the internet. Unless, of course, you want to deceive your users and trick them into clicking on something that is not what they think it is. That always works, for awhile at least.
In the meantime, I'll keep helping the people who end up there for free as best I can because in the end, that is in line with what I have hoped the internet would be.
I tried running ads once, made about a penny in a month. Turned off the ads, cleaned up the site, focused on posting my notes/work, and ended up getting recruited through some engineers finding my posts when searching for info. To me, that was way more worth it than any ad revenue, but of course, your mileage may vary.
I use Amazon affiliate links on my blog. If I'm reviewing a book, or piece of kit, I make the links point at Amazon's UK site with my tracking ID.
If a user clicks on the link, and either buys the product or something else, I get ~6% of the purchase price.
In a good quarter (100 - 200k views) I can make ~£150. Not "quit my job" money, but "offsets the hosting, and lets me buy toys" cash.
Downsides are:
- UK only. There's no (easy) way to send US traffic to the Amazon.com site. So all my international traffic isn't making me money.
- Not all my blog posts talk about a product. So I can go months without any new "money making" content.
- Can feel a bit scummy. I'm conscious that I'm writing a post not to impart information, but to entice people to click on links.
- While AdBlock doesn't seem to interfere with the links, services like Ghostery do.
Overall, I'd say that running a blog is cheap. You probably don't need advertising on it. You're not going to make retirement money unless you're literally getting millions of hits per day.
If a user clicks on the link, and either buys the product or something else, I get ~6% of the purchase price.
In a good quarter (100 - 200k views) I can make ~£150. Not "quit my job" money, but "offsets the hosting, and lets me buy toys" cash.
Downsides are:
- UK only. There's no (easy) way to send US traffic to the Amazon.com site. So all my international traffic isn't making me money.
- Not all my blog posts talk about a product. So I can go months without any new "money making" content.
- Can feel a bit scummy. I'm conscious that I'm writing a post not to impart information, but to entice people to click on links.
- While AdBlock doesn't seem to interfere with the links, services like Ghostery do.
Overall, I'd say that running a blog is cheap. You probably don't need advertising on it. You're not going to make retirement money unless you're literally getting millions of hits per day.
> There's no (easy) way to send US traffic to the Amazon.com site
You can run a small snippet of JS that replaces all the links with amazon.co.uk to amazon.com. You have to figure out that the user is from the US (maybe reading the Accept-Language, don't know if that's reliable)
You can run a small snippet of JS that replaces all the links with amazon.co.uk to amazon.com. You have to figure out that the user is from the US (maybe reading the Accept-Language, don't know if that's reliable)
// untested
var links = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
for (i=0; i<links.length; i++){
var link = links[i];
if (link.href.match(/amazon.co.uk/))
link.href = link.href.replace('.co.uk', '.com')
}navigator.language will return a string like "en-US", "en-GB", or "fr-FR" depending on the user's selected locale. That could be used to map different Amazon URLs, although it looks like you may get a fair number of en-US false reports. See https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/webappapis.html#navig....
> - While AdBlock doesn't seem to interfere with the links, services like Ghostery do.
If you're using an ordinary link, it shouldn't; are you using some kind of magic JavaScript from Amazon or an affiliate handling service there?
If you're using an ordinary link, it shouldn't; are you using some kind of magic JavaScript from Amazon or an affiliate handling service there?
Just a regular HTML link to Amazon which includes `&tag=whatever` on it. Ghostery will throw up a warning if you've asked it to block affiliate links (and rightly so).
Signing up to an ad exchange is not the only way to run ads.
I think Penny Arcade was a good example, though they're currently not ad supported. They used to have a small number of banner ads on rotation that were curated by the authors to be unintrusive and for products they happily endorsed. I often clicked on these ads as they represented good-reviews by implication.
It may be simple enough to reserve a rectangle on your site with some text along the lines of "advertise here, x views a month on average, specialised crowd, $y per month", then you could sort it out directly with a product vendor of your choice.
If life's not that simple then someone on here should set up a middleman business that would be a specialised ad exchange for linking products (small, and specialised, lowe marketing spend) with blogs (small and specialised, expert readers, blog owner must approve of the product and ad).
I think Penny Arcade was a good example, though they're currently not ad supported. They used to have a small number of banner ads on rotation that were curated by the authors to be unintrusive and for products they happily endorsed. I often clicked on these ads as they represented good-reviews by implication.
It may be simple enough to reserve a rectangle on your site with some text along the lines of "advertise here, x views a month on average, specialised crowd, $y per month", then you could sort it out directly with a product vendor of your choice.
If life's not that simple then someone on here should set up a middleman business that would be a specialised ad exchange for linking products (small, and specialised, lowe marketing spend) with blogs (small and specialised, expert readers, blog owner must approve of the product and ad).
> I think Penny Arcade was a good example, though they're currently not ad supported.
More information behind this: Penny Arcade ran a Kickstarter to remove ads on their site which was incredibly successful (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/penny-arcad...)
This method wouldn't work for normal developers because a) Penny Arcade has a massive fanbase and b) Penny Arcade makes most of their money off of merchandise.
Although, would a Patreon for a developer work? It would be a hard sell, though.
More information behind this: Penny Arcade ran a Kickstarter to remove ads on their site which was incredibly successful (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/penny-arcad...)
This method wouldn't work for normal developers because a) Penny Arcade has a massive fanbase and b) Penny Arcade makes most of their money off of merchandise.
Although, would a Patreon for a developer work? It would be a hard sell, though.
This is all true, and another interesting alternative to signing up to an ad exchange.
I specifically used past tense as their current setup is inapplicable to the blog in the article, though I'd be interested if anyone could reference other sites that are currently using PA's previous approach.
I specifically used past tense as their current setup is inapplicable to the blog in the article, though I'd be interested if anyone could reference other sites that are currently using PA's previous approach.
Nice post!
I wrote an answer on Quora for "How much do content producers who are apart of "The Deck" ad network make monthly?" which also gets into some additional details: http://www.quora.com/How-much-do-content-producers-who-are-a...
(disclosure: I'm the Founder of BuySellAds who owns Carbon Ads)
FWIW, when it comes to privacy, BuySellAds (and by extension Carbon Ads) is probably one of the few companies who don't actually do anything we don't tell you about with users' browsing data. We use it for forecasting what's available to be sold - that's it.
We also wrote a handy tutorial that will help folks determine what % of visitors are using AdBlock: http://support.buysellads.com/knowledge_base/topics/how-to-f...
I wrote an answer on Quora for "How much do content producers who are apart of "The Deck" ad network make monthly?" which also gets into some additional details: http://www.quora.com/How-much-do-content-producers-who-are-a...
(disclosure: I'm the Founder of BuySellAds who owns Carbon Ads)
FWIW, when it comes to privacy, BuySellAds (and by extension Carbon Ads) is probably one of the few companies who don't actually do anything we don't tell you about with users' browsing data. We use it for forecasting what's available to be sold - that's it.
We also wrote a handy tutorial that will help folks determine what % of visitors are using AdBlock: http://support.buysellads.com/knowledge_base/topics/how-to-f...
Keep in mind that a lot of ad blockers are blocking third-party analytics too these days, so measuring an AdBlock ratio by pushing events into GA isn't going to be very accurate.
I display a gentle plea to whitelist my site (http://encosia.com/blog/wp-content/themes/encosia/carbon-ale...) if the Carbon div isn't in the DOM after a little bit. I'm displaying that by loading an HTML fragment via AJAX, so I can grep my server-side logs and see how often that's loaded. I haven't checked lately, but the ratio was huge the last time I did look.
I display a gentle plea to whitelist my site (http://encosia.com/blog/wp-content/themes/encosia/carbon-ale...) if the Carbon div isn't in the DOM after a little bit. I'm displaying that by loading an HTML fragment via AJAX, so I can grep my server-side logs and see how often that's loaded. I haven't checked lately, but the ratio was huge the last time I did look.
Whitelisting you would also allow AddThis, Clicky, GA, G+, and Adobe. The "gentle plea" just makes your blog (or whatever it is) look annoying and desperate.
That's not very nice. Surely you wouldn't look a real person you barely know in the eyes and call them annoying and desperate for something that trivial.
Regardless, I was hesitant to add the nag, but I've only received positive feedback, e.g.:
https://twitter.com/TweetsOfSumit/status/534623233920598017
https://twitter.com/DanTheOther/status/550807053812252673
But, thanks for your opinion. It's interesting to hear what people think about it.
Regardless, I was hesitant to add the nag, but I've only received positive feedback, e.g.:
https://twitter.com/TweetsOfSumit/status/534623233920598017
https://twitter.com/DanTheOther/status/550807053812252673
But, thanks for your opinion. It's interesting to hear what people think about it.
Surely you'd expect a negative response if you walked up to random people on the street and said "let me follow you and show you ads!" IRL, I'd smile and nod politely, while trying to find a way to leave.
Considering we're talking about people choosing to visit my site, your analogy seems almost exactly backwards. They're walking up to me, not the other way around.
And, come on. The ad on my site takes up a miniscule fraction of the space above the fold and probably less than 1% of the total area of content on an average page on my site. Following people around showing them ads? That's a heck of an exaggeration.
And, come on. The ad on my site takes up a miniscule fraction of the space above the fold and probably less than 1% of the total area of content on an average page on my site. Following people around showing them ads? That's a heck of an exaggeration.
For all the people who mention running adblock, and hate ads on aesthetic grounds, visit his site from a browser not running adblock. The ads displaying in the right hand side are relatively unobtrusive and inoffensive.
(Now, if you're concerned about privacy or performance, keep adblock on).
(Now, if you're concerned about privacy or performance, keep adblock on).
How about using affiliate links for products that are relevant to your audience? E.g. books about programming, hardware, etc...
How about using affiliate links for products that are relevant to your audience? E.g. books about programming, hardware, etc..
These can work surprisingly well.
As long as your content isn't a glorified advert, often your audience will be thankful for pointing out e.g. a book or website theme they weren't previously aware of even existing.
These can work surprisingly well.
As long as your content isn't a glorified advert, often your audience will be thankful for pointing out e.g. a book or website theme they weren't previously aware of even existing.
I don't see a problem with including an affiliate link if you are talking about a relevant book.
I usually link once and do a text link rather than the Amazon graphic ad box. If it is something that interests me, I don't have a problem with it.
I usually link once and do a text link rather than the Amazon graphic ad box. If it is something that interests me, I don't have a problem with it.
These are the worst. Marco Arment periodically does reviews of various things (coffee makers, headphones, etc), and he absolutely packs them full of Amazon affiliate links. I understand that other people have more benign impressions of this, but to me it is incredibly dubious and puts the whole venture under a huge question mark -- was the "review" motivated by pitching affiliate links? Were the items selected based upon their availability on Amazon? Were the higher commission items favored? And so on. There is simply zero legitimacy left when you use affiliate links. Similarly, if you "review" a book and pitch it through affiliate links, I no longer know whether it's even worth my time (most technical books simply are not), or whether your impression of it, and encouragement of its purchase, was motivated by commission links.
Probably the least offputting, brand-ruining tactic is the Daring Fireball technique of periodically putting some shout out to a sponsor and encouragement of their product. I suspect it is far more rewarding both to him and his sponsors, and limits the sliminess to a single occasional post, versus selling one's credibility.
ITT - people pitching affiliate links and crapware on their tiny blogs talk up how great it is.
Probably the least offputting, brand-ruining tactic is the Daring Fireball technique of periodically putting some shout out to a sponsor and encouragement of their product. I suspect it is far more rewarding both to him and his sponsors, and limits the sliminess to a single occasional post, versus selling one's credibility.
ITT - people pitching affiliate links and crapware on their tiny blogs talk up how great it is.
These are the worst.
It's worth highlighting this as an example of authoritative-sounding comments that will put you on the wrong path, if you're not careful.
Techie websites and visitors are a very different market than your average customer, and within those technical circles, people like this comment writer will not be representative of the majority of your website's readers.
Whilst I think that the comment author is exaggerating for effect, it's always worth asking the question in your head:
- Does this person represent how one person or the majority of my visitors will think?
It's worth highlighting this as an example of authoritative-sounding comments that will put you on the wrong path, if you're not careful.
Techie websites and visitors are a very different market than your average customer, and within those technical circles, people like this comment writer will not be representative of the majority of your website's readers.
Whilst I think that the comment author is exaggerating for effect, it's always worth asking the question in your head:
- Does this person represent how one person or the majority of my visitors will think?
people like this comment writer will not be representative of the majority of your website's readers
Elsewhere you talked up the benefits of affiliate links, so I find your whole post somewhat ironic.
Further, it's worth noting that affiliate link blogs almost never make it anywhere on HN, /r/programming, or elsewhere. They generally exist on the fringe, existing on the meager search engine traffic, capturing the accidental visitor. Actual empirical reality seems to counter your claims. The only blog of any consequence that actually lowers itself to affiliate links is Marco Arment, and thankfully he confines that to standalone "review" type posts.
Elsewhere you talked up the benefits of affiliate links, so I find your whole post somewhat ironic.
Further, it's worth noting that affiliate link blogs almost never make it anywhere on HN, /r/programming, or elsewhere. They generally exist on the fringe, existing on the meager search engine traffic, capturing the accidental visitor. Actual empirical reality seems to counter your claims. The only blog of any consequence that actually lowers itself to affiliate links is Marco Arment, and thankfully he confines that to standalone "review" type posts.
I think you're too suspicious in the case of developers reviewing books. There's just no where near enough upside in Amazon affiliate money, compared to what people in our profession make normally, for anyone to ruin their credibility with bogus reviews to drive affiliate link traffic.
This argument is and has always been specious, yet it's always the fallback.
If the income is so low and irrelevant, why are the links there in the first place. Why even put a question mark on it when it's just entirely unnecessary? I fairly prolifically blog, and I haven't put a single affiliate link in a post since it was a novelty in the mid-90s, because to do so takes advantage of readers and undermines credibility.
And to your root claim, I'd say it's absolutely ridiculous. I've come across blogs reviewing and recommending books that they clearly had never read, at most skimming a short ways in. Most technical books are absolutely horrendous (I understand you cite yourself as an author, almost surely motivating your down arrow), so this completely short circuits the equation.
If the income is so low and irrelevant, why are the links there in the first place. Why even put a question mark on it when it's just entirely unnecessary? I fairly prolifically blog, and I haven't put a single affiliate link in a post since it was a novelty in the mid-90s, because to do so takes advantage of readers and undermines credibility.
And to your root claim, I'd say it's absolutely ridiculous. I've come across blogs reviewing and recommending books that they clearly had never read, at most skimming a short ways in. Most technical books are absolutely horrendous (I understand you cite yourself as an author, almost surely motivating your down arrow), so this completely short circuits the equation.
Because it's not a question mark in the first place for most people. Does it really make you happier if Amazon keeps those pennies instead of me using them to pay Linode? If I point you in the direction of a bad product on Amazon, it's going to be abundantly clear when you see that it has terrible reviews there. That's when it would be valid for you to flip the credibility bozo bit on me, but not simply for using an affiliate link.
I agree that most technical books are pretty bad. That's why I've only made blog posts recommending 2-3 out of the dozens that publishers have sent me to review.
In fact, if you look a few years back on my blog, Intel gave me a nice Ultrabook to review and I ultimately posted saying that I could not recommend it due to the keyboard. If I'll bite the hand that feeds me $1,500 laptops, I'm pretty confident that a few Amazon dollars here and there are not clouding my judgement.
(BTW, I wasn't the one who downvoted you; I couldn't even if I wanted to since your comment is a reply to mine)
I agree that most technical books are pretty bad. That's why I've only made blog posts recommending 2-3 out of the dozens that publishers have sent me to review.
In fact, if you look a few years back on my blog, Intel gave me a nice Ultrabook to review and I ultimately posted saying that I could not recommend it due to the keyboard. If I'll bite the hand that feeds me $1,500 laptops, I'm pretty confident that a few Amazon dollars here and there are not clouding my judgement.
(BTW, I wasn't the one who downvoted you; I couldn't even if I wanted to since your comment is a reply to mine)
IMO affiliate links are the least offensive form of ad revenue. If they are from a product review, then they do bring the neutrality of the reviewer into question, but that's true of any review (the writer could have been paid to do the review anyway). On the other hand, if I discover something through a webpage, then that can only be a good thing.
Affiliate links are the only kind of ads that I click on, there's no real downside if I am buying the item for the same price, affiliate or not, and the writer gets some cash too. Surely that's win-win?
DF (and other people)'s shout-outs are worse IMO. They are always so shiny and positive, there's rarely any sign of neutality. At least they can be skipped fairly easily.
Affiliate links are the only kind of ads that I click on, there's no real downside if I am buying the item for the same price, affiliate or not, and the writer gets some cash too. Surely that's win-win?
DF (and other people)'s shout-outs are worse IMO. They are always so shiny and positive, there's rarely any sign of neutality. At least they can be skipped fairly easily.
DF (and other people)'s shout-outs are worse IMO. They are always so shiny and positive, there's rarely any sign of neutality.
There is no illusion or pretending at neutrality: Those shout-outs are unabashed commercials, similar to the sitcom taking a break for commercials. Gruber seems to never mention the product outside of those shout outs. The alternative is someone talking about a great new book they read [BUY NOW] while drinking coffee from their french press [BUY NOW] and how oh their life is different now that they sleep on that new smart mattress [BUY NOW], and the new sous vide cooker is the bee's knees [BUY NOW]...
There is no illusion or pretending at neutrality: Those shout-outs are unabashed commercials, similar to the sitcom taking a break for commercials. Gruber seems to never mention the product outside of those shout outs. The alternative is someone talking about a great new book they read [BUY NOW] while drinking coffee from their french press [BUY NOW] and how oh their life is different now that they sleep on that new smart mattress [BUY NOW], and the new sous vide cooker is the bee's knees [BUY NOW]...
Is the affiliate-ness of the links made explicit?
If the author is making clear he or she will get a commission on sales through the link, I don't think "dubious" is a fair description.
Might actually be interesting to have a review site with both positive and negative reviews, but only include affiliate links with the positive ones. The links would signify an explicit endorsement of the product. Would make it clear the reviewers don't endorse everything out there, and somewhat tie their reputation to the quality of what they endorse.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people making money from content they create, as long as their transparent about how they're making it.
If the author is making clear he or she will get a commission on sales through the link, I don't think "dubious" is a fair description.
Might actually be interesting to have a review site with both positive and negative reviews, but only include affiliate links with the positive ones. The links would signify an explicit endorsement of the product. Would make it clear the reviewers don't endorse everything out there, and somewhat tie their reputation to the quality of what they endorse.
Personally, I don't have a problem with people making money from content they create, as long as their transparent about how they're making it.
I think there was a Coding Horror piece years ago titled something like "We don't buy software here."
There is a big segment of software developers who literally don't buy anything. Some of them use free software entirely, others use whatever software management bought. (For instance, I worked at a place that had a MSDN subscription so we had all the Microsoft tools we could have possibly wanted)
If you picked a topic truly out of random out of the great encyclopedia of the situation, you would probably make something around $1-$2 per page view with Adsense.
If you pick a topic because it is something you like (i.e. "programming", "blogging", "japanese aninmation", etc.) you join a group of other unfortunate people that are likely to be getting $0.10-0.20 per page view really because (i) there is too much of that content, (ii) the people interested in that content don't spend money.
There is a big segment of software developers who literally don't buy anything. Some of them use free software entirely, others use whatever software management bought. (For instance, I worked at a place that had a MSDN subscription so we had all the Microsoft tools we could have possibly wanted)
If you picked a topic truly out of random out of the great encyclopedia of the situation, you would probably make something around $1-$2 per page view with Adsense.
If you pick a topic because it is something you like (i.e. "programming", "blogging", "japanese aninmation", etc.) you join a group of other unfortunate people that are likely to be getting $0.10-0.20 per page view really because (i) there is too much of that content, (ii) the people interested in that content don't spend money.
> If you pick a topic because it is something you like (i.e. "programming", "blogging", "japanese aninmation", etc.) you join a group of other unfortunate people that are likely to be getting $0.10-0.20 per page view
$0.10-0.20 per page view is a number that one can only dream of. You probably rather mean $0.10-0.20 per 1000 page views.
$0.10-0.20 per page view is a number that one can only dream of. You probably rather mean $0.10-0.20 per 1000 page views.
There is an interesting side discussion as to transparency of ad exchanges.
I run a site with significant traffic that is supported by ads served by an ad exchange. I can track the number of views and the number of clicks and thereby audit the exchange's numbers.
What I can't do, is ever know if I'm getting a fair share of the underlying ad revenue since there is no published formula to translate hits/clicks/CPM to dollars.
What is your experience with this and how have you come to trust or distrust your ad exchanges?
I run a site with significant traffic that is supported by ads served by an ad exchange. I can track the number of views and the number of clicks and thereby audit the exchange's numbers.
What I can't do, is ever know if I'm getting a fair share of the underlying ad revenue since there is no published formula to translate hits/clicks/CPM to dollars.
What is your experience with this and how have you come to trust or distrust your ad exchanges?
> For one thing, the 143k hits over a 30-day period seems like a fluke.
For reference, a single post that goes viral on Reddit gets about 100k page views, while a single post that goes viral on Hacker News gets about 10k pageviews (both speaking from experience).
It's not worth the hassle of managing ads, at the least. If you're a developer, your income is probably sufficient enough to not warrant the supplemental money from ads. :P
For reference, a single post that goes viral on Reddit gets about 100k page views, while a single post that goes viral on Hacker News gets about 10k pageviews (both speaking from experience).
It's not worth the hassle of managing ads, at the least. If you're a developer, your income is probably sufficient enough to not warrant the supplemental money from ads. :P
"Worse yet, this is getting worse over time. CPM is down something like 5x since the 90s, and continues to decline. Meanwhile, the percentage of people using ad blockers continues to increase."
I hope that someday, the trend described above becomes so pronounced that it means the death of the ad-supported Internet. Perhaps there is a way to make good money on the web without resorting to such slimy tactics.
I hope that someday, the trend described above becomes so pronounced that it means the death of the ad-supported Internet. Perhaps there is a way to make good money on the web without resorting to such slimy tactics.
Like what? Make people pay for content? The internet costs money to maintain and I'm sorry to say but much of the convenience we enjoy is provided only because we look at a thousand+ ads a day. Do you really want to pay $5 a month for every site you want to read?
Meh.
At one point, I'd have said, "Yes, I would prefer that." And I think in the long run we'd be better off. People love pointing out how much of the internet is available because of ads, but they don't point out how much of it is shitty and difficult to use because of ads. I can do without clicking through 5 pages of useless blog spam looking for a real article, and stories with seven paragraphs split up over 14 pages for ad purposes. Those are business models that deserve to die, IMO.
I think a big chunk of the internet knows that going ad-free would mean they'd go from making small amounts of money off of ad clicking suckers, to making no money from anybody.
But, that said, adblocking software is so good lately, I don't mind keeping the current setup. I'm not paying, and I'm not seeing the ads, so I get the best of both worlds.
At one point, I'd have said, "Yes, I would prefer that." And I think in the long run we'd be better off. People love pointing out how much of the internet is available because of ads, but they don't point out how much of it is shitty and difficult to use because of ads. I can do without clicking through 5 pages of useless blog spam looking for a real article, and stories with seven paragraphs split up over 14 pages for ad purposes. Those are business models that deserve to die, IMO.
I think a big chunk of the internet knows that going ad-free would mean they'd go from making small amounts of money off of ad clicking suckers, to making no money from anybody.
But, that said, adblocking software is so good lately, I don't mind keeping the current setup. I'm not paying, and I'm not seeing the ads, so I get the best of both worlds.
I doubt that the same sort of ads that run elsewhere on the web would work on a software-related blog.
The blogger would probably have to do paid placement within the text of the posts, containing clickable links. If the ad does not get blocked, and I even notice it when I am scanning the text, I'm likely to just hit the back button and try the next search result.
I'm not intentionally trying to make things more difficult on the people running the blogs, but I am far more likely to remember a trademark if the blogger mentions it as a useful tool for a particular task than if an ad for it serves on a page about something else.
A manufacturer-paid or affiliate-monetized critical review sways me far more than an attached ad image--even if it was not an entirely positive review. Besides that, writing a review is content that you control. If you rely on ad-serving networks, you can't be certain ahead of time what they will be serving from your page, or what you will be paid.
The blogger would probably have to do paid placement within the text of the posts, containing clickable links. If the ad does not get blocked, and I even notice it when I am scanning the text, I'm likely to just hit the back button and try the next search result.
I'm not intentionally trying to make things more difficult on the people running the blogs, but I am far more likely to remember a trademark if the blogger mentions it as a useful tool for a particular task than if an ad for it serves on a page about something else.
A manufacturer-paid or affiliate-monetized critical review sways me far more than an attached ad image--even if it was not an entirely positive review. Besides that, writing a review is content that you control. If you rely on ad-serving networks, you can't be certain ahead of time what they will be serving from your page, or what you will be paid.
With the money that a programmer makes in the current market 150 a month is nothing more then beer money. The blog serves its purpose by acting as an advertisement for yourself, putting advertisements within an advertisement is a bit redundant. That one guy that gets turned away from the ads may be the guy willing to pay you made money.
I block ads because advertisers/networks don't respect the do not track flag. I don't want to block ads, but I value my right to privacy more than I value your right to monetize my eyeballs. If the ad companies played in good faith, then I wouldn't have to circumvent them.
Hold on, what happened to Coding Horror's traffic?
[deleted]
Updates have become very infrequent.
People have generally stopped visiting blogs. Even stand-alone web sites are starting to suffer.
I recently re-enabled my Facebook account for dev purposes, and while there liked the Verge, AnandTech, etc. So now my feed is a small amount of family stuff, and a long list of tech news, most of which I quickly scroll past.
It's interesting because I essentially never visit those sites any more. Not long ago I visited the Verge probably daily, and browsed into random stories. I visited Anandtech weekly. And so on. Now I see the headlines that I skip past, and that's that.
And on the pure blog front, a lot of people rely upon sites like HN and reddit to sift through the chaff, the idea being that those killer blog posts will rise to the top. We know that isn't actually true (HN is mostly about luck and pet topics, with a lot of terrible content rising, while Reddit is horribly, horribly gamed), but the end result is that the good content suffers.
I recently re-enabled my Facebook account for dev purposes, and while there liked the Verge, AnandTech, etc. So now my feed is a small amount of family stuff, and a long list of tech news, most of which I quickly scroll past.
It's interesting because I essentially never visit those sites any more. Not long ago I visited the Verge probably daily, and browsed into random stories. I visited Anandtech weekly. And so on. Now I see the headlines that I skip past, and that's that.
And on the pure blog front, a lot of people rely upon sites like HN and reddit to sift through the chaff, the idea being that those killer blog posts will rise to the top. We know that isn't actually true (HN is mostly about luck and pet topics, with a lot of terrible content rising, while Reddit is horribly, horribly gamed), but the end result is that the good content suffers.
Have people "generally stopped visiting blogs?" Do "a lot" of people rely on HN?
Internet usage is 39% globally [1]. I doubt there are any statements you can make that apply to 2.85 Billion People. Feels like you are ascribing your personal opinion/beliefs/experiences to "people" in general.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage
Internet usage is 39% globally [1]. I doubt there are any statements you can make that apply to 2.85 Billion People. Feels like you are ascribing your personal opinion/beliefs/experiences to "people" in general.
[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage
Is this an example of someone adding an irrelevant citation to try to add an air of authority where they have none?
Technology blogs used to be fairly significant ventures. Now there are shockingly few that are still maintained, and even those (such as Coding Horror) detail dramatic declines in readership.
Every reality goes against your garbage post. Yet still you did it. Weird. HN gets stupider by the day.
[1] - http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-cook-spaghetti-squash-in-the...
Technology blogs used to be fairly significant ventures. Now there are shockingly few that are still maintained, and even those (such as Coding Horror) detail dramatic declines in readership.
Every reality goes against your garbage post. Yet still you did it. Weird. HN gets stupider by the day.
[1] - http://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-cook-spaghetti-squash-in-the...
You kind of have to keep up a regular cadence of new content to get people to keep coming back. For instance, Coding Horror has had only 9 posts in the last six months. For the most part, I don't revisit programming/software dev blogs unless there is new content or there is something relevant that I want to go review again. Ergo, if you write most of your posts on the latest teacup-hurricane scandal or the newest version of X software/hardware product, you aren't going to get the kind of long tail that sustains page views when your posting rate slows down. On the other hand, if you are producing quality content that stands the test of time (something like lazyFoo's SDL tutorials comes to mind), then you are going to move up the search rankings on that topic, which will reinforce that long tail.
For sure, but in a way it's a bit of a chicken and egg issue. Spend lots of time making content to see the same sputter and occasional luck on the social news sites.
There was a time a few years ago when you could ask what the best tech blogs where and there would quickly be thousands of posts. Now...most of those have been abandoned, and little has appeared in their place. Even among professional sites it's amazing how many technologies (for instance Intel's tablet chips) get almost no treatment at all, and astonishingly little actual effort is expended, so we just end up with some vapid, high-level commentary that is then blog spammed across autonomously created dupe sites.
It's just a wastelands. People stopped coming and people stopped being interested.
There was a time a few years ago when you could ask what the best tech blogs where and there would quickly be thousands of posts. Now...most of those have been abandoned, and little has appeared in their place. Even among professional sites it's amazing how many technologies (for instance Intel's tablet chips) get almost no treatment at all, and astonishingly little actual effort is expended, so we just end up with some vapid, high-level commentary that is then blog spammed across autonomously created dupe sites.
It's just a wastelands. People stopped coming and people stopped being interested.
And more full of trolls :-(
Indeed, here you[1] are.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0787474/
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0787474/
I agree that certain demographics are most likely to click than others. I myself rarely click on ads, and estimated that click through rates must be very low (1/1000). Yet, my sudoku game site routinely has CTR of 2-5%. No ad tricks, just a large and obvious ad. I can only imagine what CTR tricky ads get.
http://sudokuisland.com
http://sudokuisland.com
If you want to be evil do like these guys and freeze who has adblock, but I sincerely hope you don't do that (not everything is about money!): http://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/2to4pm/what_evil_blo...
> What advertisers are interested in an audience that’s mostly programmers with an interest in low-level shenanigans?
Employers?
Employers?
People who produce goods and services for low-level programming shenanigans.
> Premium ads can get well over an order of magnitude higher CPM, so the picture might not be quite as bleak as I’m making it out to be. But to get premium ads you need to appeal to specific advertisers. What advertisers are interested in an audience that’s mostly programmers with an interest in low-level shenanigans?
I've no experience marketing anything aimed at this audience, so have no idea what suitable companies think about this, nor what CPMs or CPAs they'd be used to seeing in their ad spends.
But as a rule of thumb, targeted means more interesting to advertisers who want to hit that audience. For example if a VPS company wanted to advertise, where better than on a popular programmer's blog? (Again I have no idea on what margins or target CPAs a VPS company would have, so just a random example.)
Of course, a targeted audience that doesn't interest any advertisers can have the opposite effect and drive your CPMs down, but more often than not it will help. It's just a question of will it help enough to justify the time getting the right advertisers to part with their money to advertise with you.
(I also have no experience either selling or buying adverts for personal blogs, but the above rule of thumb is pretty scalable.)
edit: Got distracted before finishing reading, and will now add my thoughts to his last paragraph:
> There’s the argument that ad blocking is piracy and/or stealing, but I’ve never heard a convincing case made. If anything, I think that some of the people who make that argument step over the line, as when ars technica blocked people who used ad blockers, and then backed off and merely exhorted people to disable ad blocking for their site. I think most people would agree that directly exhorting people to click on ads and commit click fraud is unethical; asking people to disable ad blocking is a difference in degree, not in kind. People who use ad blockers are much less likely to click on ads, so having them disable ad blockers to generate impressions that are unlikely to convert strikes me as pretty similar to having people who aren’t interested in the product generate clicks.
I make most of my living from people seeing digital adverts and I'd never argue its piracy or stealing. So I'm with the author on that one.
As to preventing people from reading your website if they don't disable adblockers - I think it's a shitty thing to do, it's not something I'd ever be willing to suggest anyone does, but at the same time I don't see why a website shouldn't at least be allowed to do it. If a site does it and you don't like it then stop visiting.
Personally I like sites that show "You're using an adblocker - you can keep using it if you like, but we'd really appreciate if you didn't". The reason for this is I disagree with the premise that those who use adblock won't click adverts. The number one reason for people using adblock is that too many advertisers/publishers allow shitty adverts. Adverts that pop out of the window. Or cover up content. Or use too much bandwidth or memory. Etc. If you're not one of those publishers, and you don't allow those kinds of advertisers on your site, then there's plenty of people who use adblock but might consider clicking on one or more of your adverts if they could be persuaded to view them. I'm not talking about asking them to click adverts, just that if they see them they might actually want to click on them.
I don't have data to back this up, but have a couple of people I'm going to talk to and hopefully see if I can get numbers to demonstrate this, as I'm confident its the case.
Alternatively if anyone reading this has a decent-sized audience (preferably with a high pageview to unique ratio - i.e. more loyal visitors rather than just visitors driven by search enginges) and would be interested in testing, feel free to get in touch to chuck about a couple of ideas. I couldn't really help on the execution side, but would happy to give advice on how to test if you'd be willing to share numbers with me afterwards. (The basic idea would be to see what % of people respond to polite requests to disable adblock, and how click rates are affected. If you have the technical chops to do more then could go further and either attempt to anonymously identify which clicks came from a previous adblock user, and also look at actual conversion rates rather than just click rates if your advertisers allow you access to this data.)
I've no experience marketing anything aimed at this audience, so have no idea what suitable companies think about this, nor what CPMs or CPAs they'd be used to seeing in their ad spends.
But as a rule of thumb, targeted means more interesting to advertisers who want to hit that audience. For example if a VPS company wanted to advertise, where better than on a popular programmer's blog? (Again I have no idea on what margins or target CPAs a VPS company would have, so just a random example.)
Of course, a targeted audience that doesn't interest any advertisers can have the opposite effect and drive your CPMs down, but more often than not it will help. It's just a question of will it help enough to justify the time getting the right advertisers to part with their money to advertise with you.
(I also have no experience either selling or buying adverts for personal blogs, but the above rule of thumb is pretty scalable.)
edit: Got distracted before finishing reading, and will now add my thoughts to his last paragraph:
> There’s the argument that ad blocking is piracy and/or stealing, but I’ve never heard a convincing case made. If anything, I think that some of the people who make that argument step over the line, as when ars technica blocked people who used ad blockers, and then backed off and merely exhorted people to disable ad blocking for their site. I think most people would agree that directly exhorting people to click on ads and commit click fraud is unethical; asking people to disable ad blocking is a difference in degree, not in kind. People who use ad blockers are much less likely to click on ads, so having them disable ad blockers to generate impressions that are unlikely to convert strikes me as pretty similar to having people who aren’t interested in the product generate clicks.
I make most of my living from people seeing digital adverts and I'd never argue its piracy or stealing. So I'm with the author on that one.
As to preventing people from reading your website if they don't disable adblockers - I think it's a shitty thing to do, it's not something I'd ever be willing to suggest anyone does, but at the same time I don't see why a website shouldn't at least be allowed to do it. If a site does it and you don't like it then stop visiting.
Personally I like sites that show "You're using an adblocker - you can keep using it if you like, but we'd really appreciate if you didn't". The reason for this is I disagree with the premise that those who use adblock won't click adverts. The number one reason for people using adblock is that too many advertisers/publishers allow shitty adverts. Adverts that pop out of the window. Or cover up content. Or use too much bandwidth or memory. Etc. If you're not one of those publishers, and you don't allow those kinds of advertisers on your site, then there's plenty of people who use adblock but might consider clicking on one or more of your adverts if they could be persuaded to view them. I'm not talking about asking them to click adverts, just that if they see them they might actually want to click on them.
I don't have data to back this up, but have a couple of people I'm going to talk to and hopefully see if I can get numbers to demonstrate this, as I'm confident its the case.
Alternatively if anyone reading this has a decent-sized audience (preferably with a high pageview to unique ratio - i.e. more loyal visitors rather than just visitors driven by search enginges) and would be interested in testing, feel free to get in touch to chuck about a couple of ideas. I couldn't really help on the execution side, but would happy to give advice on how to test if you'd be willing to share numbers with me afterwards. (The basic idea would be to see what % of people respond to polite requests to disable adblock, and how click rates are affected. If you have the technical chops to do more then could go further and either attempt to anonymously identify which clicks came from a previous adblock user, and also look at actual conversion rates rather than just click rates if your advertisers allow you access to this data.)
The economics of private ad sales have gotten worse in the last view years, particularly for the bigger sites.
The big thing in online advertising is "retargeting" which means that a bunch of systems in NYC built by people who have burned out of HFT will bid for ads in real time with the consequence that you will look at a pair of shoes on Zappos and the shoes will follow you around for days.
Retargeting has the benefits that: (i) you're more sure people have some interest in the product, and (ii) the results are quantifiable. Spend has moved away from premium venues towards retargeting which is good if you have a bottom feeding site (they can show a relevant ad even if nothing matches the content of the page) and bad if you have a premium site.
The big thing in online advertising is "retargeting" which means that a bunch of systems in NYC built by people who have burned out of HFT will bid for ads in real time with the consequence that you will look at a pair of shoes on Zappos and the shoes will follow you around for days.
Retargeting has the benefits that: (i) you're more sure people have some interest in the product, and (ii) the results are quantifiable. Spend has moved away from premium venues towards retargeting which is good if you have a bottom feeding site (they can show a relevant ad even if nothing matches the content of the page) and bad if you have a premium site.
It's definitely helped shift budget from premium targeted sites to bottom feeding sites, but (at least in my experience) a.) There's still plenty of money for the premium sites (either because a brand wants to be associated with a nice site and/or not associated with adverts on shitty sites, or because it helps build up the cookie pool once people click the ads which then lets them retarget those users) and b.) CPM rates for those premium sites are still considerably higher than would be paid across RTB or retargetting networks.
Another reference: I'm getting about $30/month for 60K pageviews/month to www.developingandstuff.com – definitely not serious cash, just a nice incentive.
[deleted]
I would suggest you hyper target your site with key advertisers that can support content. For example, MS for Azure content. They can provide readers with real value. But requires you figure out how they can make it worth it for your audience.
Then there's AdBlock, of which most of the people reading the blog might be aware of.
The web looks weird with all the advertisements when I'm not on my own machine.
The web looks weird with all the advertisements when I'm not on my own machine.
Let's be honest here, you didn't read the article.
This is very, very interesting. Thanks for the detailed informations! To be, ad monetization is a big black box. It's very helpful to have "insider" information.
At the same time, I think I'm not alone. There's just something dreadful about having your decision making so directly influenced. It's sort of a "why are you trying to push this thing on me? Is it not good enough to stand on its own merit?" I believe that when I need something, I will find it and do my own research. This is why I also never put much value in Facebook. Who clicks on those ads? Aren't you just there to socialize?
Edit: I should say that I am aware enough to realize that there are much more subtle form of marketing that definitely do influence me. If a person I respect gives something a good review, for example, I will be more likely to buy it. If a company has a good story to tell about themselves, that makes me think highly of them. If it's a product I've seen on Shark Tank I'm more likely to consider it because I'm more familiar with what they do. Ads are just too obvious about it for me.