Admin

Advertising On Your Blog: Good Intentions - Bad Idea

By
Services for Real Estate Pros with MyST Technology Partners

I'm amazed there are so many business people that believe they should try to monetize their weblog or website by selling ad space. Apparently many businesses are so dissatisfied with the benefits and performance of their online marketing strategy that they feel they must lower the total overall cost of this activity by going into a different business altogether. This is just silliness.

I was on a panel at NAR this week with the folks at Blogging Systems; they're clearly bright people - they've written a book about business blogging. But they're misdirected. David Crockett, the panel moderator and owner of a community blog by Blogging Systems, suggested that it was a good idea to go around to your community members and try to sell them ad space on your blog for $75 per month. What? Did I hear that right? I thought he was a real estate professional? This suggests he's building an online portal to sell ads - isn't that Yahoo!'s gig?

Consider the hidden costs of engaging your company, your time, and your brand in this activity.

Your Brand Focus - You risk brand confusion by placing ads for other products and services on your pages. This is just one more way to show people how to leave your site or become interested in something besides that which you sell. Nothing says web site success like a bunch of links to another business.

Your Company Focus - Ads suggest to customers and prospects that the advertisers must be more important to you than your own prospects and business focus, otherwise you would use that space to your own advantage.

Your Message Focus - Exchanging valuable web page real estate for a banner or AdSense ad robs you of opportunities to say something important to your prospects. Consider the opportunity cost because it's a double whammy - not only are you bluring your marketing message, you are foregoing a chance to capture prospects by sending them elsewhere to buy other goods and services.

Your Time - Why would any business spend their valuable minutes each day to even ponder this idea? It requires time to establish new revenue models - ad selling, contracts, negotiating, banner placement, responsibilities, ad changes, etc - all these tasks represent costs, and the revenues are miniscule compared to your own time-value.

Think about it this way - if you could say something to a new prospect in the same place you put a banner ad, what would the value of that message opportunity be to your business? Placing a Goggle AdSense or banner ad might net you 15 cents per impression. Are you willing to forego using that space to say something important to your next web visitor in exchange for something that's valued less than a stick of gum? Anyone that would tell you this is a good idea is blessed with economic illiteracy.

You might get $100 per month for a local ad, but that's only $3.33 a day, and for what - the chance to create a diversion for your audience? I put this into the you've-got-to-be-kidding-me class of business ideas. This is a fine strategy for people that write content for a living - indeed - people that are bloggers and have few options to monetize their content. I believe people like Mr. Crockett are simply misdirected by the booming voice of "bloggers" that believe business people should become "bloggers" and use blogs exactly as they have. In my view this is the first step to losing focus of what you sell, and why you blog for business objectives.

Here's some advice - if the value of a new customer is at least as valuable as two month's total ad revenue, consider this a really bad idea because there's a good chance that greater marketing focus and a stronger message will net you at least one additional customer every 60 days. Another way to look at it - would you rather have an extra $900 or 6 more customers next year?

************** update *************** 

I rarely update a post once I publish it, but since so many folks are beating me up on the premise that their own ads have actually increased credibility and improved user satisfaction without any risk or cost, I thought it would be a good idea to bring in some research that helped shape my own philosophy of ads. With specific regard to credibility, consider...

There's a really useful site called the Stanford Web Credibility Research center for understanding all this techno-mumbo-jumbo about credibility and web sites. Below are some anecdotes that relate to the true cost of hosting ads.

"If possible, avoid having ads on your site." - here

"Although banner ads are often said to be ignored, they are not transparent to users. Ads can reduce Web credibility in varying degrees." - Stanford-Makovsky's 2002 Web Credibility Study

Given that online marketing initiatives such as blogsites and websites are specifically intended [by most users of these technologies] to enhance visibility, it goes without saying that credibility is one success factor of that endeavor. Why would you purposefully do anything that erodes your credibility? Many sites do, but I sense they do so without factoring in the true cost. And to be clear, there is a context where you might answer this affirmatively - when the net revenue from ad serving is greater than the loss in percieved credibility.

"Sponsorship provides an interesting lens through which to view Web credibility. Sites that were advertised on the radio or other media were reported to get a moderate credibility boost (mean = 0.77). Asking about advertising from a different angle, our study found that the credibility gained by using targeted online ads was nearly negligible (mean = 0.22)." - What Makes Websites Credible

An understanding of sponsorship (i.e., using banner and text ads) really compelled me to think carefully about the question of ads. If we think about how the sponsors of a web site affect credibility we can state with almost certainty that sites that have ads that match the topic you are writing about, will produce a .22 mean credibility advantage to the site itself. To get a persepective of what this really means - consider that if you advertise your site on on the radio or other old media outlet, you can expect a .77 mean boost in credibility - or about 3.5 times more credibility over [just one] hosted ad that is specifically about your content. A .22 mean increase is not bad, but as the study found, it's very close to negligible.

"For the most part, our respondents reported that advertising damaged a site's credibility. Simply having an ad on the site led to a slight decrease in credibility (mean = -0.60), while pop-up ads were regarded even more harshly, seriously damaging the perceived credibility of the site (mean = -1.64). Finally, sites that made it difficult to distinguish between ads and content were reported to be the least credible of all; the mean here of -1.90 was the most negative score in this study."- What Makes Websites Credible

But the data is equally compelling and underscores a risk factor when you consider a site with an ad on every page - the mean credibility loss is -.60; simply stated, with almost absolute certainty, we can predict that any site with an ad on every page has diminished credibility - not much, but absolutely a non-zero amount that is functionally equal [but opposite] of the credibility benefit of advertising on old media outlets. A pop-up ad will net you a mean loss of -1.64, and blending ads so that they're difficult to pick out will create a negative credibility score of -1.90.

In my comments below, you will see my assertion that hosting ads typically comes with a cost - a potential net loss in percieved credibility is indeed [one] component of that cost.

Show All Comments Sort:
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Kevin -

"I guess this is further proof that if you cannot beat someone at their own game..."

I'm not sure what you mean by beating anyone at their own game. Blogging Systems is evoking a specific philosophy - that is - sell ads in your blog. I'm suggesting an alternate philosophy - forego selling ads and focus on your core business value. I'm sorry you misinterpreted the nature of my post. Perhaps a little explanation will help me clarify my comments.

I didn't invent my own philosophy as a competitive posture against Blogging Systems - I simply used them as a good example of a common (but aurguable) practice. It's important that you understand I came to adopt and understand my philosophical perspective through direct customer requirements.

We approached many of our Blogsite Advertorial customers in concert with ad-serving solutions from Google, Yahoo, Pheedo and a few others. All but one customer indicated the following sentiments through a series of customer focused conversations. These are the paraphrased comments that we heard:

  • We are brand-greedy; we want prospects that discover our content to buy from us.
  • Our partners are introduced through our qualification process. If a relevant partner is important to a new prospect we introduce them through direct conversations.
  • We find no benefit in earning additional money for clicks - our prime focus is to first solidify a basis for doing business.
  • Our advertorial is an extension of our brand; we're not interested in sharing the spotlight at the point where we're trying intensify a conversation with a new prospects.

These all seem to be valid concerns for most businesses.

This was also the conslusion made by VeriSign, Intel, and AutoAnything concerning their RSS feeds. We mentioned to each client that we could easily assimilate extremely relevant Pheedo ads into their RSS content. All three companies passed on the idea because they felt the content was more valuable without such ads - indeed, they all agreed that the incremental revenue benefits did not outweigh the true cost of embellishing content with distracting messages about other brands.

Our understanding (based on real customers paying for real services) suggests that they have a feeling that the value of content varies depending on the existence of ads. Hence my post title - you may have good intentions, but there are hidden costs that may also affect the outcome.

If you disagree, that's fine - I've already agreed that there are some contexts where my philosophy is irrelevant. If you can safely say that the addition of ads to your content will have no adverse impact on your core business objectives, then you should do that.

Nov 16, 2006 05:23 AM
Kevin Fontenot
IDS Consulting - Houston, TX

My first comment says exactly what I mean.  It is as obvious as the nose on your face that you are on a rampage against Blogging Systems and this post is indicative of that.  If it were unprovoked I would believe what you say but it is obvious that after having sat down in a conference with them that you have decided to run headlong after them and that is your prerogative but don't try to disguise that as an informational article.

I don't work with Blogging Systems in any capacity so your comments directed at them do not affect me but don't try to wrap up a jab at them or anyone else as your expressing your point of view but instead start your post with the statement "Blatant self-promotion at the expense of others."

If you want to talk about misrepresenting something then you need to address the fact that you habitually argue with people and disagree with fact when it doesn't suit you, your company and your product.

I think your last comment is in fact irrelevant because you are:

1. Talking about companies with nearly as much money as Solomon as if they care about AdSense.

2. Talk about monetizing an RSS feed when the topic is clearly driving some income to a Real Estate company that would like to feel that its website is not a parasite but instead can at least recoup some expenses rather than being an expensive web version of a paper weight.

 

 

 

Nov 16, 2006 06:36 AM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Kevin -

Now we have a real show, eh? ;-)

I wouldn't call my post a rampage against anyone or any product - it's just an observation. And speaking of facts (which you mistakenly think I'm impervious to), consider that customers with Real Blogging's services are free to not advertise on their sites just as Blogsite customers are equally free to place ads. My advice is vendor agnostic, but at least one representative of Blogging Systems advised 500 attendees that this was a good idea. I'm simply taking exception with such broad strokes of advice and dispensing my own version of advice. ;-)

"... Blatant self-promotion at the expense of others ..."

Or, said another way -- a blatant unselfish attempt to help real estate professionals understand some of the issues with hosting ads.

I feel one way about this subject -- they [apparently] feel another way about it. I learned about their viewpoint at NAR - so how is that relevant to saying [or not saying] anything about this observed behavior? Might this topic be of interest to people with a TypePad blog, or any other blog service? I have a hunch that it may be of interest to many blog services users and people thinking about blogging that will likely never use my platform.

"... you need to address the fact that you habitually argue with people and disagree with fact ..."

Actually, I agreed with your direct assertion in my comment. I'll say it again - if anyone believes that their content is more valuable (overall) with ads in it, then they should do that.

While it's true that my viewpoint has been shaped by successful companies, the data about these client's startegies isn't necessarily irrelevant. I like to feast on a diet of knowledge and make decisions that way. How do you suppose our most successful clients became successful? Is it possible they recognized that everything has a cost - even putting ads in content?

"... the topic is clearly driving some income to a Real Estate company ..."

Hmmm, I think you're missing an important point - I sense that you *want* this to be the topic, but the topic is really about the business you are in - is it real estate? Or is it web ads? The topic is not about driving *some* income to a real estate company - it's about optimizing *all* revenue for your business - the macro view of how ads and content shape customer expectations and behaviors.

"[real estate businesses] would like to feel that its website is not a parasite but instead can at least recoup some expenses rather than being an expensive web version of a paper weight."

This is a very good point, but it's not the point I was trying to get people to see. Rather, I was trying to open some eyes to the possibility that if they stayed on message and focused purely on what they do well, which is -- a hope to create greater sales revenues doing things that they are really profitable at -- that (and only that) will benefit them far more than some ad revenue.

To be clear (and to hopefully address your point) I'm not advocating that businesses not try to reduce costs or that they simply adopt a feeling that a web site is a digital paperweight. However, you have to draw a line somewhere on matters of this nature.

Consider...

Since real estate agents are forever driving around neighborhoods, why don't they put a freezer in the trunk and also sell ice cream bars between home showings? This is an absurd idea of course because any real estate professional could see that it would defocus their core business activities and rob them of valuable time, energy, and a few prospects would likely question their committment.

But this activity also meets your stated requirement - help the sales agent feel like driving around is not just a sunk cost. The same could be said about gasoline costs, or time wasted showing a home that the prospect wasn't interested in - at least they could say - well, I sold three dozen Heath bars.

In my view, selling ads creates a similar (but not nearly as absurd) kind of turbulence to your core business focus.

But more to the issue of a paperweight... 

If a real estate agent believes their site is indeed a waste of money - enough so that only a different business activity will make them feel okay about it - don't they have a different kind of problem? How would whitewashing the real crux of the problem with some ad revenue make it right? Wouldn't they be better off fixing the issues with the site to improve performance than opting for a way to make a poorly performing site cost less?

This is no different than saying - since I really suck at showing and selling homes, perhaps I should sell Heath bars to compensate for this basic lack of real estate selling skills. No smart sales professional would say that - instead, they would seek to remedy the true problem through training or coaching.

Nov 16, 2006 07:54 AM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Damion -

Good points - the cost of ice cream services is far more invasive. I concede - it's way off the chart of good metaphores - I've never been good at fabricating good metaphores. However, it does underscore the question about what's more important - serving ads, or doing what you do really well.

"This statement alone has severely lessened my opinion of you and you have nullified any standpoint you may have had with me at all ..."

For creating a crappy metaphore you're going to summarily dismiss the idea that ads on your blog come without any cost? I don't mind losing credibility with you, but jeeze, I'd rather lose it on lack of merit in the real question. So I suck at good analogies - big deal - it doesn't invalidate the research at Stanford.

So how about this one - a prospect calls your office on the telephone and during the first 30 seconds of your chat you discover that he needs to hire a plumber. For what price would you put the prospect on hold and forward his call to a plumber without having a chance to say anything else? I think that's a better analogy. What's your take?

"Ads on a website are a one-time, set it and forget it deal"

Not all ads are in this class - specifically not the ones suggested at NAR. I'd like to hear your comments about the loss of credibility issue in serving ads - have you given that any thought?

Nov 16, 2006 12:16 PM
Kevin Fontenot
IDS Consulting - Houston, TX

Bill, 

You cannot deny that you have made several posts since your return from NAR that relate to Blogging Systems and yet you claim your comments are vendor agnostic.

I have to agree with Damian in that it only takes a moment to add AdSense and then you never deal with it again.  Seems remarkably simple in that you can make money without really tending to the ads once the code is in place.

I also notice that you reference a 2002 study.  I am not sure you realize it but this is nearly 2007 and science/technology evolves at a rapid pace rendering that study as current as the Dead Sea scrolls.  After all in 2002 Pluto was a planet and look at today...

Your opinion is always welcome but don't masquerade a focued series of attacks as opinion.

 

Nov 16, 2006 12:28 PM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Damion -

Nothing taken personally - your words were fine - they made sense.

"Your second analogy was much better placed but I would not forward his call."

But see - that's the beauty of the analogy - with ads on the web you don't have the latitude of not forwarding the prspects call. It just happens without any intervention.

"I would discuss his situation and let him know that I have a few plumbers I do business with on a regular basis and would be happy to give him their number or make the call for him."

Of course you would - and all realtors would. But again - you don't have the ability to do that with ads on a web site. So I have to ask again - For what price would you put the prospect on hold and forward his call to a plumber without having a chance to say anything else?

These are indeed difficult questions to answer and I'm not saying I have the right attitude about this, but I am certain there's a hidden cost to putting your business in exactly this position.

We can probably agree that there's a probability greater than zero that ads create opportunities to miss a more important connection for your core business objective - either through distraction or through credibility erosion. We can also (likely) agree that there's zero chance of that happening without ads. So, rationally, I can easily conclude that there's a hidden cost associated with hosting ads on your site. How significant (or insignificant) it may be is debateable and likely contextual - it's probably different for every site and perhaps every content page.

"My websites have roughly 70-80% of the visitors bookmark them so I know they will come back at some point :)"

That's a good point, some of the folks you forward a call for will call back just as some people that click on ads will come back. But what will non-techie's experience on their sites? You have significant web skills that help you track and mitigate the way folks use your site - you said yourself - it's tricky to make this work correctly. And what if the ad-clickers are in the 30% class of users that don't bookmark your site?

"I see no loss of credibility in serving ads ..."

You feel this way after reading the research from Stanford?

Nov 16, 2006 01:39 PM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Kevin -

"You cannot deny that you have made several posts since your return from NAR that relate to Blogging Systems ..."

Guilty! And I'll probably make a few more. Besides, isn't that a good thing to be doing? Or, are you suggesting we just be complacent about innovation in our market segment? I thought the whole point of a community was to express opinion and explore new ways of thinking.

I picked these subjects because the moderator of the panel (who happens to be affiliated - maybe an investor - with Blogging Systems) offered up some advice that's debateable and a behavior that everyone seems to adopt without thinking. I'm simply saying - you should think more clearly about your online startegy and not just follow the same path that everyone assumes is the only path to success.

"... and yet you claim your comments are vendor agnostic."

If the opinions and advice I offer are able to be employed by any user on any product or service, yes - I believe that's my definition of vendor agnostic. Besides, I haven't attacked any feature in Blogging Systems product - they have a fine blogging system, and in fact I know it well (probably better than anyone) - I even used it at NAR. It works great and I love that post to the future feature.

"I am not sure you realize it but this is nearly 2007."

Kevin - you can try to insult me by suggesting I've lost track of time, but it doesn't mitigate the facts - however dated the research may be. It's relavant data and some of the most respected and accepted research concerning credibility and the Internet to date. Don't attack me for referencing it - attack Stanford University or better -- bring in some better data that shows I'm completely wrong.

FWIW - I might point out that I'm the only one putting up data in this thread. I get the sense that no one here wants to consider alternative theories for online success strategies.

Nov 16, 2006 02:06 PM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Kevin - oops - I missed this comment.

"I have to agree with Damian in that it only takes a moment to add AdSense and then you never deal with it again."

I have to agree with both of you.

"Seems remarkably simple in that you can make money without really tending to the ads once the code is in place."

I agree with this statement as well. For the most part, AdSense seems to be a fire and forget solution. I'm not disagreeing with the nature of AdSense or the relatively inexpensive cost of deploying this type of ad program. I'm questioning if this is a smart thing to do.

I'm certainly no expert in AdSense, but I've heard there are issues with relevance. I've also heard you need to keep a close eye on it because as your content changes and you write about new subjects, unanticipated ads may get served. I have the impression that there are specific tricks needed to get it to dial in. Is this not the case?

Nov 16, 2006 02:59 PM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Damion -

Certainly the research data is long in the tooth, but I think it's tells a broad story of ways to measure credibility - I don't think ads, consumers, or sites have changed that much in the last 48 months - the credibility indicators still seem to make a good deal of sense.

And I also I agree - we've pretty much covered all the ground worthy of discussion and I've had the floor far too long on this subject. But I think it is a good collection of multiple viewpoints and at the end of the day - customers decide what's best, not us.

Just because I don't agree with adoption of this model in every case, it doesn't mean I don't respect your viewpoints. And I'm sorry you fellers think I'm gimmicking here to sell product, but it's doubtful that will ever be the outcome for anyone that takes a contrarian viewpoint and questions status-quo. There are plenty of good subjects to debate that may trigger sales, but this subject isn't one of them.

Cheers, bf

Nov 16, 2006 03:16 PM
Diane Bell, Hilton Head Real Estate, Bluffton
Charter 1 Real Estate, Hilton Head, Bluffton, SC - Hilton Head Island, SC

While I'm no expert on the proper protocol of bloggind etiquette, I'm wondering if there is no right or wrong answer to this issue.  Would it be so wrong to have affiliates within your own profession paying for spaces?  I really can't say but this is probably something that will be evolving over time.

May 27, 2007 09:00 AM
Jennifer Kirby
Kirby Fine Homes - Minneapolis, MN
The Luxury Agent
Well written post. I like the fact you took the time to come up with examples to back your viewpoint. Too many times people go on the attack with out any facts. I am sure there are postives for both sides and it all depends on someone's business plan. Sometimes, people try things, and then decide they don't work.
May 27, 2007 09:25 AM
Lenn Harley
Lenn Harley, Homefinders.com, MD & VA Homes and Real Estate - Leesburg, VA
Real Estate Broker - Virginia & Maryland

VERY interesting read. 

I made the decision in 1995 that I would not put advertising on my web sites, that I would not link to other sites and I have continued that to this day.

Works for me. 

I put Homefinders.com in AdSense for a o couple of days, saw an ad pop up for one of my main competitors, dropped AdSense and never looked back.  Why on earth do I want to risk sendin a $10,000-#30,000 commission to a competitor for a lousy $1.32 from AdSense.

I collected a $125,000 commission from a sale last year.  If I had AdSense on my site or banner ads on my site, it's too easy for folks to jump.  They can't resist. 

Good discussion Bill.

May 27, 2007 09:26 AM
Anonymous
Jack Frisk

Bill, I first looked at your personal profile before reading your blog, expected an add for skiing, wondered what it was you were promoting, must be Dillon is a great place to ski, and therefore your a great guy to call if one is looking for property in that area, is that correct? A bit of a diversion from real estate, but socially acceptable. Hope your not selling ski merchandise or lessons in your spare time. Next I read your item with interest, until it became the Damion Flynn, Bill French and Kevin Fontenent show. I wondered about the national real estate companys who advertise along with there sales and listing services, title, mortgage, and other related services and wondered if there is a distinct difference other than the media. Must be, since I hear no complaints from NAR, on the subject. Would I be distracted if a morgage co had an add along with my real estate article, not if they and I are reputable and I guess it depends on the content, but one thing is for certain, this tirade I have just witnessed has damaged any validity to the above presentation. No, I cant ski worth a darn, and we quite dueling here in Kentucky, a long time ago.

 

May 27, 2007 09:54 AM
#21
Anonymous
Anonymous

Diane -

"_While I'm no expert on the proper protocol of bloggind etiquette, I'm wondering if there is no right or wrong answer to this issue._"

Blogging (per se) evolved as a personal journalling tool, just as the Internet itself evolved from predominantly research and education. In each case, etiquette evolved as well. There was a time when email (for business purposes) was frowned upon; the same can be said for instant messaging, ball point pens, and the telephone. How silly, eh? Apply the same historical knowledge to blogging - the etiquette of blogging has and will continue to evolve.

"_Would it be so wrong to have affiliates within your own profession paying for spaces?  I really can't say but this is probably something that will be evolving over time._"

I absolutely agree with you - that idea seems to be congruent with core business values if your usual and customary business model includes and depends on affiliates. A good example of this would be a real estate broker with 100 agents. The broker is in a position to aggregate users of services (such as car leases, business insurance, health care, office supplies, office space, telephone services, Internet services, etc.). Business blogging services and hosting space seems to be yat another way to create economies of scale. I think your comment that this is evolving is a very good point - individual agents could benefit by blogging in a community of blog conversations under the umbrella of a dominant brand (such as a market-leading broker). The broker benefits by harmoniously aggregating linke-minded content that buyers and sellers will appreciate. Call it a blogging rental charge (to the agents) or a small advertising fee - the concept is just as smart as buying paper-clips by the case and distributing them to the agents. This idea (however) is [at least] slightly different than soliciting advertising revenues from third party companies - a business strategy that is not [typically] core to a company such as a reasl estate brokerage.

Jennifer - thanks for the comment - I agree - no single rule ever applies in all cases.

Lenn -

"_Why on earth do I want to risk sendin a $10,000-$30,000 commission to a competitor for a lousy $1.32 from AdSense._"

Well said - it's just common sense.

"_I would not link to other sites and I have continued that to this day._"

There are reasons to link to other sites and that's a separate subject, but doing so through AdSense is indeed risky business.

Jack -

"_expected an add for skiing, wondered what it was you were promoting, must be Dillon is a great place to ski, and therefore your a great guy to call if one is looking for property in that area, is that correct?_"

Incorrect - I'm not in the real estate business, nor do I sell anything directly to anyone in the real estate business. I build Internet technologies for many business segments including Internet security (VeriSign), chip makers (Intel), defense and aerospace, public relations, entertainment, automotive, and digital media.

Correct - Dillon is a nice place to live and ski. ;-)

"_damaged any validity to the above presentation_"

Okay - well, the beauty of AR is that you can (i) take it, (ii) shape it, or (iii) leave it. I typically take what's behind door #2 (shape it), hence a good debate ensues. ;-) For three decades I've been building technologies well in advance of adoption, and my visionary skills are pretty good (ex - I built LapLink in 1980 - 5 yrs before the first laptop - 73 million customers now). I'm batting .588 for technology acquisitions and I have a hunch that my assertions are correct and well founded. Just because there are harsh dissenters in any debate, it doesn't necessarily invalidate either point of view. I would encourage you to consider the facts and then decide based on your own hunches. I appreciate the comments.

May 27, 2007 01:46 PM
#22
Trent Cluley
Jasper, GA

As "heated" as the above discussion may have been, it sure is great to see such a strong debate emerge on AR, rather an endles litany of "Great post" and "I agree!" comments.  Not sure where some of the vitriol came from, but hey, still makes for good reading, personal attacks aside.

The assertion that the post was adverserial in nature because it sprouted from the fertile soil of a potential competitor's verbal droppings, to me is meaningless, and in no way affects my view on the possible merits of the argument.  In fact, had the issue been raised as a complement (or compliment) to the "wise advice" of a competitor, I would have taken it for fluff on the coattails of someone more knowledgeable, and dismissed it immediately. 

If I'm not mistaken, it is divergence of opinion, products and services, that creates competition, and making this distinction publicly known is a solid business practice?

So, aside from any possible intent to "disparage" the competition, what's the bottom line?

We have some free advice (thank you), and something to which we can at least give consideration.  There is little chance that a wholly definitive answer will be available -- I will never know how many potential customers I lost by placing ads, and never know how much revenue I lost by not doing so.  Likewise, absent extensive testing, the SEO benefits or costs (if any) are unlikely to show, but its doubtful that there is any real advantage that couldn't be gained through other means, such as great content.

What we're left with is logic.  IMHO, what Bill is saying makes sense.  There certainly is an opportunity to make money this way, but sticking with core business will do the same.  I have spent a lot of time learning some of the ins and outs of technology, websites, blogging, and yes, tweaking ads, and have often wondered at this use of my time as a distraction from my professional development.  Not to mention the big question of "to ad or not to ad?".  As a consumer, I'm easily distracted and often find myself several pages from where I started, through "burrowing down", and don't want that to happen to my sites.

My personal website has no external ads, however, I do use Adsense on one of my blogs.  It is easy to install and track, and part of my reasoning was to fly under the radar of consumers who are accustomed to seeing ads on blogs, and didn't want to come across as purely self-promotional.

Problem is, I find myself questioning how many readers have opted not to follow the links to my website, because they decided to visit an advertised home inspector's website, or a lender, or whomever, rather than relying on me to "guide" them to those sources of information.  I worked real hard to get them there to begin with . . .

So this professional insight is definitely food for thought.

"Great post!"

Dec 04, 2007 08:11 AM
Anonymous
Bill French

Trent:

Excellent summation. Your comments are so good I truly considered not responding since your comments represent the perfect punctionation to this long thread.

"I will never know how many potential customers I lost by placing ads, and never know how much revenue I lost by not doing so."

Actually, you can make an educated guess concerning the latter. Consider that one of the top bloggers made less than $4,000 with a blog that was attracting huge numbers of visitors - 2.4 million page views for the first year. Certainly some reasonable metric could be applied to arrive at a fairly good approximation of ad revenue lost.

"Likewise, absent extensive testing, the SEO benefits or costs (if any) are unlikely to show, but its doubtful that there is any real advantage that couldn't be gained through other means, such as great content."

Agree.

bf

Dec 05, 2007 01:03 AM
#24
Gareth Dirlam
eshowings.com - Bear, DE

Could it be that consumers, long used to television advertising, when accessing informative (or fun) content for free are willing to put up with ads, but when accessing a service that they reasonably expect to pay for would be less inclined to be accepting of ads.

Lets face it, we are an ad society. We even go out of our way to watch ones that we like (super-bowl), but get plenty annoyed when HBO and Movie Houses first started showing ads.

 

Mar 14, 2008 10:52 AM
Bill French
MyST Technology Partners - Dillon, CO

Sure, that's plausible. But I must ask - if you are promoting a product or service that generates hundreds or thousands of dollars in revenue for each incremental prospect, is it worth it to risk one prospect in exchange for 25 cents?

This is almost the same as working your tail off to get someone to call you and as soon as they do, you put them on hold and play a Taco Bell commercial. Then you tell them to call back if they're still interessted in the reason they came to you in the first place, then you hang up on them.

Seems absurd. I think it's a bad idea given the business objective. But the context is important - if you are in business to trade content for ad revenue, that's a far different objective than maximizing sales on trophy homes.

Mar 14, 2008 12:11 PM
Paul Gapski
Berkshire Hathaway / Prudential Ca Realty - El Cajon, CA
619-504-8999,#1 Resource SD Relo

thank you very much for the informative and interesting post. I get so much out of the active rain network.

Mar 08, 2012 11:51 PM
Anonymous
Phil Dickamore

I think it hilarious that this guy thought this was a good business plan. Yes you can make a few bucks on the side but for the risk of ticking off, diverting, and annoying your customers, it is simply not worth it! I do agree that if you are a content blogger it could be worth it but thats the only way I see it. I sell <a href="http://finaltouchautomotive.com/">mufflers</a> & other car parts online and I would never consider doing this to our company blog!

Dec 13, 2012 05:44 AM
#28