If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed.
Thanks for visiting!
This post is a perfect example of the kind of post you really want to write, but shouldn’t. Next week, I’ll tell you why this post is a bad idea (despite being stingingly clever, penetratingly well written, and absolutely correct.)
In the meantime, read it and tell me what’s wrong with this post in the comments!
I’m as much of a Godin fan as the next guy. He’s a brilliant thinker and a prolific writer. What’s not to admire?
Today, though, he missed badly… something he rarely does.
In his post Ads Are the New Online Tip Jar, he suggests that readers should ‘pay’ for the free content they consume on blogs by clicking the ads displayed thereon. Also, that if we all started ‘tipping’ writers that way, it would immediately change the economics of the web.
Maybe he ran too quickly to the keyboard after having that thought, because he’s way off base… and I can’t help but imagine he’d have realized it himself with just a moment of reflection.
First, telling folks to click on ads that are paid by the click is to ask them to commit click fraud which is, according to wikipedia, ‘a felony in several jurisdictions‘ including California and the UK.
Second, a large percent of ads displayed on blogs aren’t pay-per-click. They’re paid by ‘impression’ (that is, the number of times they’re viewed, not the number of times they’re clicked.) In those cases, you’ve already dropped your change by visiting the site.
Third, even if you ignored the first two points, the fact is that the economy of the internet wouldn’t change a bit… at least not for long.
That’s because advertisers (PPC or CPM) decide how much they’re willing to pay for a traffic source (in this case a blogger) based on the results they get from that source. If millions of folks started clicking ads they had no interest in, the advertiser’s results would plummet on a per-click basis. That is, if they used to get one sale per 100 clicks, now they’d be getting 1 sale per 1000 clicks.
So, all advertisers would quickly adjust what they’d be willing to pay per click or impression. Ad prices would go down right with the results achieved, and bloggers (and advertisers) would soon be in the exact same boat they were in before.
If you want ‘tip’ a blogger, you’re going to have to buy something. You could do it by buying from an ad on the site, which would increase the blog’s value in the eyes (er, wallet) of that sponsor.
Burning their sponsors with a fraudulent click ain’t going to cut it.
That said, I think most bloggers who’d like to elbow their way into the limelight would agree that if you wanna tip, a thoughtful comment would be lovely.
Got another dime? A Digg, Delicious, Technorati, StumbleUpon vote all are we ask.
After all, that’s why we leave our hats out with handy links and comment boxes (see below).
BTW, Seth apologized and elaborated.
Follow me on Twitter! It’ll be a hoot.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Ken Rosen 08.25.08 at 9:01 am
Hi. Landon.
I’m not sure why I got an unsolicited email recommending I read the post you “shouldn’t have written,” but I’ll presume it was legitimate based on signup at some point and I’m here, having already read Seth’s clarification. The most amusing part of your message is the part you added later: “despite being stingingly clever, penetratingly well written, and absolutely correct.” I cannot agree with “absolutely correct” and won’t comment on the other adjectives. To me, the problem with this post is you argue (and accuse of fraud!) based on your incorrect assumption of what the writer meant…or could have meant…without attempting to clarify. You took the weakest interpretation (blind, disinterested clicking/fraud) and explained how it wouldn’t work. But you miss or ignore the strongest interpretations, such as believing posters we trust will pick their sponsors carefully enough to justify a moment of our time. This argument with the weakest (often false) interpretation happens all the time on the web, of course, so no reason to beat yourself up about it. However, it seems worth avoiding.
Landon Ray 08.25.08 at 9:23 am
Golly, Ken.. looks like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning…
At any rate, thanks for your thoughts.
Of course the “stingingly clever and penetratingly well written” part was meant to be funny. The ‘absolutely correct’ part, I’ll defend.
Seth did eventually clarify some, but in his original post he didn’t say ‘click on ads that interest you’. He said, ‘click something to say thanks’ and suggested it would be good if content consumers would make it a habit.
He even says, “You don’t have to buy anything (though it’s fine if you do). You just have to honor the writer by giving them a click.”
If that’s not asking for a disinterested click, I don’t know what is.
But, I also argue that EVEN IF we all agreed on this new ‘tipping’ protocol, it wouldn’t change a thing for anyone in the long run. (Seth’s eventual argument to the contrary is weak, but I’m not gonna get any deeper into this conversation.)
You’re right that it’s tempting to pick apart what others say, assuming the worst interpretation. In fact, that’s close to one of the reasons I’ll share next week on why bloggers shouldn’t write posts like this.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
(And for the record, yes, you are opted-in to our list. Am happy to remove you. Done.)
Malcolm Auld 08.25.08 at 5:02 pm
Hey Landon
Like your attitude, but your second point about online ads is slightly incorrect. The term “impressions” refers to the number of times an ad is displayed and has no reflection whatsoever on the number of times it is viewed. The only gurantee an ad is viewed is if it is clicked-on. This is one of the great fallacies of media sales - that just because an ad is displayed it is viewed/read/heard by all thepunters who are consuming the media in which an ad appears.
If you believed media planners we’d all live to 150 and spend 24 hours a day consuming every piece of advertising in all media we come close too.
Keep up the good work.