Changing How We Handle Advertising And Sponsorships
from the advertising-is-content dept
We're excited to announce today that we've moved in a new direction with the advertising and sponsorships we do on Techdirt, partnering with SAY Media to provide compelling, interesting and engaging forms of advertising and sponsorship. Let me just say, up front, that I recognize that there's a common thread among many who visit this site that all internet advertising is "bad." And I'll be the first to admit that all too often internet advertising is terrible. It can be annoying, intrusive, irrelevant or just plain useless. Because of that, most of us have pretty complete ad blindness. We either automatically ignore all of the ads we see, or we use tools like AdBlocker to avoid even having to deal with the ads.But, for many years (since before I even started Techdirt), I've wondered what could be done if people realized that the ads were content too, and if you made those ads, by themselves, compelling and useful, then you could do much more with them. For the better part of the decade we've been banging the drum that ads are content too, and they should be treated as such: meaning figuring out ways to make them as compelling as possible on their own. There is no more "captive audience" and if our ads are boring, annoying or irrelevant, we fully expect you to ignore or block them -- and we won't blame you if our ads lead you to do that.
Instead, our focus is on getting marketers to realize how much more effective and compelling their campaigns can be when they stop even thinking about what they're doing as advertising, and begin realizing that the real opportunity is in teaming up to create compelling, useful and relevant content. We don't want you to be annoyed by our ads. We want you, the community, to actually be excited about and interested in the content presented there. And we're thrilled that SAY Media is the perfect partner for this endeavor. Just take a look at the Seven Principles the company articulates on its website:
Basically, this is a company who views the world in a very similar way to the way we do, has a brilliant team of exceptionally creative folks, tremendous reach, extraordinary knowledge and fantastic experience in creating unique, compelling and powerful marketing campaigns.
Of course, much of this is an aspirational goal. We don't expect to be there with perfectly compelling content-filled advertising and sponsorship right off the bat. This is a process, and it's a process we really just started. Beyond figuring out exactly what we can do, there is an education process in helping marketers also recognize the power and value of much smarter campaigns. Also, much of this process involves experiments, and if you want to have the truly exceptional success stories, it means taking some risks... and that means that we will occasionally fail (sometimes spectacularly) in meeting those goals. And we fully expect (even rely on) you in the community to let us know both when we fail and when we succeed. But we promise you this: our goal here is to provide truly compelling and valuable experiences for the community, through true engagement.
Finally, if you're interested in taking part in some truly unique, compelling and engaging marketing campaigns, please contact us. We'd be happy to work together with SAY Media and any company who embraces these same principles, to create truly unique marketing experiences. In the past few weeks, as we've prepared for this shift, our team and the folks at SAY Media have been coming up with a long list of ideas of fun things we can do. We just need the right marketing partners to join us and make these things possible. Hopefully some of you reading this right now are interested in being the right partner for a fun, interesting and compelling campaign.
Thanks for being a part of what's been a fantastic, lively and educational community for so many years. We will always strive to provide as much value back to you as possible, and this partnership will help continue that process.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: advertising, techdirt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course. Our goal, though is to get it to the point that ad-blocker won't matter on the site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not surprising I guess that they depend heavily on flash cookies for tracking, and you just ran a puff piece about a court decision that flash cookies didn't cause harm in a particular case. Excellent work Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang it, you tricked me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I unblocked techdirt and partner sites (advertisers) from my script blocker and from adblock. Shock, the page became utterly polluted. And I got very displeased. But I thought "ok, I like techdirt so lets bear with it". Then one of the ads was incredibly intrusive and kept enlarging itself and preventing me from reading every time I hovered my mouse over it (which happened a lot accidentally). Then another ad opened above the stuff and I had to click it to close the 'window'. And thus I blocked ads from techdirt.
So, please, LESS BANNERS. LESS FLASHY STUFF. Use written stuff. Or at least let us choose what we wanna see. I'll unblock it again in 2 or 3 weeks. If I see a polluted site I'll block again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm. When did you do this. Part of this switch is that we're down to a single ad unit (other than Google ads). Previously we had a lot of ad units, but part of this effort is that we will only have one ad unit per page (other than Google).
Then one of the ads was incredibly intrusive and kept enlarging itself and preventing me from reading every time I hovered my mouse over it (which happened a lot accidentally). Then another ad opened above the stuff and I had to click it to close the 'window'. And thus I blocked ads from techdirt.
With a previous partner, we had some bad ads get through, and those are all blocked. With this new setup, there is an ad unit that expands, but not immediately upon mouseover, but with a countdown.
So, please, LESS BANNERS. LESS FLASHY STUFF. Use written stuff.
We're already there, but will be doing more. There definitely will be more written stuff as well. For now, though, there will remain the single ad unit. While we're still ramping up that area, the nice thing is that at least some of those ads are actually really interesting and well done. They're content itself.
Still, we'll definitely keep in mind this feedback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You see, even with a counter, ads that enlarge themselves are annoying. I'll agree with you that maybe one graphic ad on the side might be ok but it seriously depends on the ad not being too flashy and wanting to appear more than techdirt itself.
My suggestion would be make the ads interactive upon clicking once. For instance, if you click on it it will interpret as you allowing it to enlarge and even play sounds. Twice means you wanna go to this sponsor page.
Hovering the mouse on it doesn't mean you wanna see more. I stopped using msn when they came with this approach.
Still, I'll surely unblock later to check if it's better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Could I suggest an edit button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
People are forgiving of mistakes and most of the time no one even says anything, but no edit prevents certain people from going back and changing their posts when they are caught up in their lies and propaganda.
So my advice is come to terms with no edit button and make the Preview button your friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Thank you for "getting it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Instead of things that don't require interaction to take over the page, which is really beyond infuriating and flat out unacceptable, play the little video in the ad window upon the mouse over. Some of your ads do that, and they're fine. Don't allow anything to get in my way of reading your posts or the comments unless I specifically ask for it to do so with a click of my mouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Ninja on Aug 23rd, 2011 @ 12:11pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Ninja on Aug 23rd, 2011 @ 12:11pm
@Mike: keep an eye on the comments here, we should use them to give you feedback. I'll be using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What dolt made duplicate the "submit" button?
Oh, well. I'll just opine that unless you're clever enough to work it in so isn't obvious -- unlike your frequent pieces praising Google -- then my contention is still that the advertising revenue model FAILS prettty soon.
See the above site for how to block more effectively than AdBlocker. Installing a "hosts" file is simple enough that even Windows users can handle it, then it's done automatically through the TCP stack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What dolt made duplicate the "submit" button?
Can I use this as a slogan for my company? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What dolt made duplicate the "submit" button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What dolt made duplicate the "submit" button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ad vs recommendation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I will for the now allow these to come through but the first time they get my irritation factor going they will go where the rest of the internet ads go; completely blocked.
I understand that sites need finances to keep going. Server hosting costs money every month, rain or shine and it isn't cheap.
I view ads like I do telemarketing on the phone and commercials on tv. If it was such a great product, my neighbor would be telling me about it. But to hear someone beating the bushes about some product tells me there is something wrong with it that they got to toot their own horn cause no one will do it for them. Add to that commercials are a product you pay for in the price of the item. It adds no value to the price except to make it more expensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the Record
Having things moving on the page when I'm trying to read is extremely annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For the Record
I don't mind too much if they animate for a few seconds after loading and then *stop*, though. It's the looping ones that are horrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Anyway, occurred to me that this is exactly the Arse Technica approach. -- Well, it's the entire net that runs on the ad model. -- "Our ads aren't intrusive... That is, they soon won't be. We've completely changed ad-server. No flashing. Honest. -- You should ADORE them because it makes the site possible!"
Phooey. It's hucksterism.
And as I've said (and will repeat): I just plain don't think that advertising WORKS anymore. It's a new ball game on the net because I can largely AVOID advertising. BUT, I'm keen to see your version in practice, Mike. Only I'd have rolled it out without notice. -- Forewarned is forearmed. You've telegraphed your punch. The audience is manifestly skeptical, so you've put the bar on the top pegs now, and it's time to show us how you jump. I'm looking forward to you doing a face-plant, but it's not personal, just my wishes for all of advertising.
Tip for Firefox users: type "about: config" in the address bar, then find "image.animation_mode" (may be only similar on newer), and change its value to "once". That lets you see the animations (sometimes fun), but they end after one cycle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Just FYI, we actually started rolling out these ads a month ago, and have not received a single complaint. So...
But the ads on the site are just the beginning. The real focus is on new creative sponsorship offerings, which you'll start seeing soon. And in such cases we absolutely want the bar to be as high as possible. There's no "punch" involved. That's only if we're trying to trick someone.
We're not. The focus here is on creating great content and great features. And to do it in a way that it doesn't seem or feel like advertising, because it's not "advertising" in the traditional sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Not sure where you got that info, but it's simply untrue. We've done multiples projects with both companies, and have more lined up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
As a side note, are you truly aware of all the various javascripts and trackers loaded on every page of techdirt? I compared it to your privacy policy, and I cannot be sure who is trying to get what about me. Can you help out on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Perhaps you are unaware of how such things work. Most sponsorship works by campaign, which has a set time. When they end, they go away. When new campaigns come about, then new things happen.
Both companies have run multiple campaigns on the site, and pay close attention because you'll recognize the sponsors of some future campaigns in just a few weeks.
As a side note, are you truly aware of all the various javascripts and trackers loaded on every page of techdirt? I compared it to your privacy policy, and I cannot be sure who is trying to get what about me. Can you help out on this?
I would be more than willing to help you understand if you truly did not understand. But seeing as you're the same person who comments here every day on every post trying to make a big stink about things that you're usually 100% wrong about (see above: re companies sponsoring us), I am beginning to sense that in the four or five years of you posting here, that you don't actually honestly want our help on this.
Like most sites, we track certain information about our users in order to improve the experience. The privacy policy is accurate and up to date, despite your attempt to pretend that we are somehow being misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
On most sites I know, when a company "sponsors" a post or section, they pretty much buy it for life. The section lives and dies with their sponsorship, as it was specifically created to promote their products.
The way you presented your relationship with UPS appeared to be one of a much more solid and permanent nature. Instead, it was just a nice way for you to attempt to "talk about the sponsors" rather than just have ads.
Sadly, it just made me filter it all out, and I haven't used UPS since (I sort of hate them in fact, their drivers in my area tend to be very lazy and don't like lifting anything over 5 pounds, it seems).
As for my posting, well, I learn a lot from this site. I learned all about the Tardian universe, and I learn some amazing lessons from you on how to play with weasel words, how to sit on the fence, and how to always seem to have a way to slither away from any position. I'm not the only one that notices this, I have seen a number of "Masnick Sucks" type posts and websites online. I think my lack of "understanding" is only that I don't agree with you, and I am unable to grasp the very odd angles that you approach things at.
As for your privacy policy, I am unable to see a list of companies that you allow to load javascript, flash, or other tools which could be used for user tracking. I don't see links to those companies or any disclosure. I count a significant number of external javascripts, images, and the like on each page. Can you help us out here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
They may not be very smart on business, but I don't think they're *that* clueless. We did have some BSA "anti-piracy" ads for a while a few months ago, which I thought was kind of funny.
But, it does raise an interesting question. Should we take ad money from companies we disagree with, recognizing that if they're spending money with us it's money that isn't going to worse purposes? Or is that somehow bad? We've turned down advertisers we don't like in the past, but sometimes I wonder. If we could get reasonable ads out of them, would it be wrong to take their money? Interesting questions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Allow pr0n ads and you will see what I mean :)
The same in less dramactic ways happens to other kinds of ads.
Is there a "like button" thing for ads?
To help gauge what works and what don't?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
further, do you make each and every customer pass a 'test' of whether you agree with them politically, morally, religiously ? ? ?
if you have a store selling widgets, do you screen every customer to make sure they are exactly like you, believe in the same things, and they never did anything 'wrong' or distasteful in their lives ? ? ?
would *anyone* have *any* customers under such a scenario ? ? ?
...or, do you just have to realize that to make a living, you have to ignore all that crap and sell your wares/services to whoever comes in the door (real or virtual) ? ? ?
i pretty much think that for all practical purposes, it has to be the latter situation...
p.s. sorry, won't be turning off my adblock for ANYONE, not even a site i admire as much as yours...
ads suck, i don't care whether it is teevee, billboards, fucking movies (grrr, that really frosts my flakes! ONE reason i don't go very much), the floor of the supermarket, or the inertnet tubes: i ignore them all... the only place they are the least objectionable, is where i have the most control: magazines...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ^^ Dang. Forgot "less than" invokes HTML: put "enter key" in my last title.
Whether this ends up working to the greater advantage of the devil or the angels really depends on who's made the better deal with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tend to view the ads more than I click on them. That is because I only really click on ads that are really relevant to me at that time. Sorry no 'enlargers' needed, or dating services etc.. The more flashy and annoying the more I tend to ignore it and the hosting site.
I look forward to years of fine unobtrusive ad supported reading from Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so that's why the annoying ad
Makes sense.
Yes, ads are important - they pay the bills. But the flashy ones that start up just because your mouse goes over them are the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so that's why the annoying ad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Honosty ?
If you want ads to be less annoying, then think about the honousty as well. I have no interest in creative, involving content that is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I simply won't use a browser that doesn't allow me to easily block 3rd party sites by default.
- There have been too many incidents of third party sites carrying malware.
- The third party sites invariably distract or take-away the content I am on the primary site for.
- Advertising is for the weak-minded.
- I don't ever think ads add to a site's content because they invariably come down to they cost everyone extra money. This is why craigslist is the best deal online: It doesn't use advertising internally or externally, so their costs are kept down and everyone can basically sell without a distribution or advertising fee. I will never, ever support advertising, and when it is forced on me I'll gladly leave the site (as I did with ars technica).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bottom toolbar rage
I'll still run my adblocker. It's easier to just install it and walk away. I don't interact with it and it doesn't interact with me. Just the way I like it.
I'm not a hardcore Techdirt reader. Mainly just read the tweets and if a story interests me I'll head on over, but most of the time I've heard it elsewhere already (not a bad thing, Mike and friends always make good points) so I'll pass over it.
Whatever works the best for you Mike. It's your project, and continuing to explore possibilities is what helps keep it alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bottom toolbar rage
That one probably is the Wibiya toolbar :)
But also Techdirt uses according to Ghostery:
Comscore Beacon
Facebook Connect
Google +1
Google Adsense
PostRank
Quantcast
Reinvigorate
Twitter Button
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bottom toolbar rage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bottom toolbar rage
ps: I was almost sure that I have send a reply to this post already, maybe it got caught on the filter I don't remember, but I will apologize in advance in the case that another post happens to appear saying the same thing I already said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bottom toolbar rage
We do try to offer our users useful tools, not annoy them. Feedback on our site features is always welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank goodness for adblock eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheDailyWTF's "Sponsor Appreciation"
It is the only sort of ad I actually might end up clicking. It is relevant to the interests of the kind of people who read the site, it explains what it is about so you do not waste time clicking if you are not interested, and it is pure text with a static logo. It is also very well placed, somewhere you will read but without being too intrusive. And since it is part of the content of the site, it is not blocked by EasyList (AdBlock Plus' default list).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]