Brave New Media

The building I work in also provides office space to creatures from another universe. We work upstairs; they work downstairs. We smile and nod as we pass in the lobby or on the way to the vending machines, but we have only the vaguest sense of who they are and what they do and that's just the way we like it.

We're in news. They're in advertising. We keep separate.

This is a cardinal rule in print journalism. Advertising and news have to be separate and independent of one another or the news loses all credibility.

We have ads in the paper for all the local GM dealers and we have articles in the paper covering the strike at the local GM plant. We have ads in the paper touting the latest no-down-payment, adjustable rate mortgages, and we have articles in the paper covering the effects of the subprime lending collapse. Political candidates buy campaign ads in the newspaper and the newspaper covers those political campaigns. The meaning of those articles would be lost or tainted if our readers had grounds to suspect that the selling of those ads had any influence over the substance of our reporting.

So this rule is important. Non-negotiable. Inviolable. The wall of separation between news and advertising in print journalism is a bearing wall -- poke holes in it and the whole structure will collapse.

That's how print journalism works. In the wild west frontier of "New Media" online journalism, things seem to be a bit more ... flexible.

For a look at the New Media future, take a peek at IndyStar.com. Check out the article "Big Ten honors IU's Gordon." It's an otherwise unremarkable account of Indiana's freshman guard earning conference honors in basketball. "Gordon scored 33 points against Chattanooga last week, breaking George McGinnis' school record for most points in a debut game ..."

But what's this? The word "game" there is underlined and in green text. It seems to be a link. Context and convention would suggest, if you had to guess, that this link would take readers to an article on the Indiana-Chattanooga basketball game so they could read more about Eric Gordon's auspicious Hoosiers debut and his 7-for-11 shooting from behind the arc. But hover your mouse over the link and you'll instead get a tool-tip pop-up box touting the X-Box 360. Click on the link and it takes you to the X-Box 360 site. The word "game" -- within the article -- is an ad for a gaming system.

Let's try another one: "$66M to aid IU, Kenya anti-AIDS program."

First sentence: "The federal government has awarded a $60 million five-year grant to a partnership between the Indiana University School of Medicine and a Kenyan university that fights HIV/AIDS in that country." The word "government" there is a link, taking the reader, inexplicably, to this advertising site for HP's BladeSystem c3000.

Second sentence: "Currently the program provides care for about 52,000 Kenyans who have HIV." "Program" is a link to this ad for something called AMD Virtual Experience 2.0, which I guess is a computer program, but not a computer program that has anything to do with Kenyan anti-AIDS efforts.

Fourth sentence: "Indiana University School of Medicine will also donate $6 million over the next five years to the effort, housed at the Moi University Teaching and Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya." The link word there is "Kenya," which takes readers to this ad for American Express' bonus miles travel rewards program. The elliptical connection there being, I suppose, that one could use one's double SkyMiles to travel anywhere, including to Kenya. Or something.

IndyStar.com's ads are provided via Vibrant Media, which calls itself "the in-text advertising leaders." Their approach is similar to the Google Ads that you'll see here in the sidebar to the right, except of course that Vibrant's ads do not appear in a separate sidebar identified as advertising, they appear in the text itself. These ads breach the wall of separation between content and advertising. They do so proudly and zealously -- that's their selling point.

On a page dealing with their "editorial policy," Vibrant makes their case for why these embedded ads -- this seamless integration of news and advertising -- doesn't constitute a threat to the independence of news from advertising:

Vibrant In-Text Advertising cannot influence online editorial content. The IntelliTXT technology is implemented in real-time and deployed after editorial content is produced and posted online. Similar to many online advertising solutions, this is an automated process that cannot influence, or be influenced, by the editorial team within Vibrant Media's partner publications.

I appreciate this attempt to acknowledge the ethical questions involved, but I think my response to that would be, "We've already established that, madam. Now we're just haggling over price." In-text advertising, in my view, opens a door that should never be opened and blends two separate universes that should never be blended. This is Bad News for news.

But perhaps I'm overreacting. What do you think? Would you like to see your preferred online news sources -- The New York Times, The Washington Post, Talking Points Memo -- follow the Star's lead and begin embedding in-text ads in the content of their news stories? Does this development worry you at all?

Comments

[ohiolibrarian]

Fred: You know, I think this particular type of ad is very dumb.
Everybody: Yeah, that particular type of ad is very dumb.
paradoxbomb: But if there weren't any ads, the Earth would explode and everyone would die!!!

And that's why we have TIVO, because of the ads.

Seriously, what Internet ads are actually Superbowl good? Are there any?

[Geds]

For that matter, what Super Bowl ads are Super Bowl good anymore?

[paradoxbomb]

So block or disparage them if you want, but realize that without them the Internet wouldn't be what it is.

I meant this quite literally - if ads bother you, please block them. If they suck, say so. You won't really affect anything, since:

1. There's a very small number of you.
2. You're not the types who click on ads anyway.
3. Marketing directors are dumb and think these ads are a good idea because they work just enough to be worth it.

I just want people to understand the full story: that advertising finances the sites you use and love daily.

[MikeJ]

I just want you to understand: I was happy with the internet when gopher was still pretty spiffy. Killing advertising would get rid of 90% of the web? Nuke away. The hinternet will be fine.

[Seminarian]

The problem is that if advertising stopped funding nifty private sites all that would be left on the internet would be advertising, not nifty private sites. Actually, the internet is mostly advertising now. But nuking the invasion wouldn't change that.

[MichaelR]

Also, the complaint is not about advertising, it is about obnoxious advertising. If you want to see what it looks like done right, look at Penny Arcade. Two ads, one of which may be Flash, both of which relate to the overall subject matter of the site (that being "video games"), along with a few buttons at the bottom.

If you want to see what it looks like done wrong...well, look at Fred's examples, then imagine if they also had one of those ads that make noise added in, one of those seizure-inducing flashing "ONE MILLIONTH VISITOR" ads, and then for bonus points one Flash ad at the bottom of the page that causes some sort of graphic effect to tear through the thing you're actually there to see.

[not someone else]

Yup, that's exactly what I wrote.

I think the point is that nobody cares. They're trying to sell us a product; we're not required to be grateful to them for it, even if they do incidentally and through no apparent fault of their own support something we enjoy.

[MikeJ]

I just don't buy the bullshit argument that everything you love will die without advertising. IMDB existed without advertising because somebody cared enough to create it. Something tells me Fred doesn't do slacktivist for the $3.94 per month he makes on ads. People who are passionate will build web sites, with or without advertising.

It's all the same argument as the music biz. If nobody ever paid for another album again, which recoding artists would go get other jobs? Brittany Spears? Fine. I always hated the Grateful Dead, but I doubt you could have stopped those guys from playing even with direct threats of physical violence. The artists you care about will continue, and will thrive somehow. The crap will go away.

[paradoxbomb]

I'm not sure you realize the cost that making a website like IMDB entails. First, there's the hosting, which starts off cheap ($50/month) then skyrockets ($2000+/month if you're lucky) as you get more and more traffic. The much larger cost is the time and energy people invest in to making these sites. Very popular sites like IMDB and Wikipedia may be able to exist based on donations or a wealthy benefactor, but what about smaller websites that fill a niche? Why should people not be allowed a reward for their efforts? Passionate people will build websites, but what happens when the traffic outgrows their pocketbooks?

Personally, I like my search results relevant, my online maps easy and fast, and my online email account spacious. Advertising pays for all of this. Google and all they've done to advance web technology would be nowhere without it.

Seriously, what's with the aversion to money? Talented and creative people deserve to be rewarded when they produce good or useful content. Online ads are the easiest way on the web for talented and creative people to make a few bucks for their efforts. Done right, they're unobtrusive and (gasp) might occasionally point you at something interesting.

[Jeff]

In fact, it is now necessary to page through 10 or 20 pages of ads just to find the table of contents so you can find the page number of the article you want to look at.

Plus, half the magazine is ads, which have no page number, so finding the article you want is even more difficult.

===============================

An extreme example is that a date such as "May 4, 1980" will be two links, one to a page listing stuff that happened on May 4, and another that lists stuff that happened in 1980. The second one might be useful for providing context, but for the life of my I can't guess what anyone imagines the purpose of the first one could possibly be.

I like to make birthday cards for friends and co-workers, so I usually find interesting people who have the same birthday, and make a card based on them.

[Shannon]

Also, the complaint is not about advertising, it is about obnoxious advertising. If you want to see what it looks like done right, look at Penny Arcade.

I've actually seen two examples of good, well-marketed ads in online comics. One is a gadget called Project Wonderful made by the guy from Dinosaur Comics (http://www.qwantz.com/). Advertisers bid to place their ads on a certain site. But to participate, you have to know the site and its audience and are probably part of the webcomic/indie internet community. Another one is IndieClick, which is a lot more commercial. They handle advertising for a variety of "indie" products (new rock bands, networking sites, etc.) and place them on webpages where people of a similar persuasion might see them. Both are far more intelligent than Google ads. I've clicked on links on both because they look interesting and correctly target the audience. These Intext links are just throwing darts when there isn't even a board. The good examples know the board's size and distance - and so are more likely to get bullseyes. So it is possible to do right, but just requires effort.

[ako]

Done right, they're unobtrusive and (gasp) might occasionally point you at something interesting.

I actually don't hate all ads. I quite like movie previews.

I hate the majority of online ads because they treat the customer with the same amount of consideration afforded by people running the Nigerian email scam; never mind how many people you bore and annoy, or whether the people you actually do make money off of it wind up getting anything out of it on their end. Just ensure that you can manipulate a large enough percentage of people that you make more than you spend.

I don't want to give money to people for treating me disrespectfully. It encourages them. Having an ad jump down to cover half the screen I'm reading, opening windows I don't want, forcing me to stare at a page I'm not looking for before letting me reach the page I want, or strewing garbage links around hoping I'll mistake them for something relevant is pretty damn disrespectful. It's showing that they'll eagerly waste my time and bandwidth to rake in whatever fraction of a penny a click earns them, and aren't concerned with whether I'm willing to see what they're offering. Which is why I object so much to people doing that.

[Richard Hershberger]

"I like to make birthday cards for friends and co-workers, so I usually find interesting people who have the same birthday, and make a card based on them."

That's an argument for Wikipedia having a page for each day. It isn't an argument for every date in every Wikipedia article having a link to such a page. I have been quite thoroughly trained to ignore hyperlinks in Wikipedia articles. It seems unlikely that this was the original intent.

[paradoxbomb]

ako: I completely agree with you.

My point can be distilled to two bullets:

1. Advertising pays for a large part of the sites you use on the web.
2. When ads are done correctly, they are relevant and unobtrusive, and thus a small price to pay to use someone's website for free.

Obtrusive, annoying ads are not only disrespectful, they don't actually work that well. That's why they have to be so obtrusive - the ad by itself is poorly designed or targetted, so they have to throw it in your face to increase their click through rates. Unfortunately, this works to a degree and reinforces the idea that this type of ad works. People who run these ads are very conservative (in the averse-to-change sense) and will just go with with the first thing that works, regardless of the effect it has on the site's viewers. The ads are the product of laziness - no one is willing to put the (usually considerable) effort in to designing a good ad and targetting it at the right demographic, so they go with the easy solution: slap it in front of you to force you to notice. The ads have low click through rates and abysmal conversion (the term for when someone clicks on an ad and then gives the advertiser money), but it's unfortunately just high enough that advertising/marketing directors aren't willing to try something different.

It's possible, however, that if enough people complained to the site owners, they might actually change something, but it would take a very large number of complaints, to be sure.

[Ursula L]

Online ads are the easiest way on the web for talented and creative people to make a few bucks for their efforts. Done right, they're unobtrusive and (gasp) might occasionally point you at something interesting.

Fred's articles here, however, aren't about ads done right. They're about the ever-increasing number of ways in which internet ads are done wrong.

Windows that pop up when you don't want them to. Blurbs that appear when you're mouse goes over them as you move to the side of the screen to scroll. Pages you have to wade through before you reach the page you're trying to get to. Ads disguised to look like part of the writer's original text, intended to work by deception.

These ads don't just annoy the reader. They also harm the people doing ads the right way. Readers are less willing to look at ads, and more likely to dismiss them as junk.

I don't mind ads done right - on a site I like, I'll deliberately click on an ad now and then, to give the person who runs the site a few cents, and if I'm going to buy something from Amazon, if I know a site I like is affiliated, I might go through that site to give them a bit back. If I do a google search, and the site I want comes up as a regular link and a sponsored link, I'll use the sponsored link - I appreciate google, and figure it's worth supporting them this way.

This site does ads well - clearly labeled as ads, to the side where they can be viewed easily when you want to view them, but not in the way when you're trying to read the rest of the site, and no confusion between what is Google's work or Amazon's work, and what is the work of Fred and the people who read and comment.

But the moment that it stops being clear what is ad and what is not, a site stops being useful. Likewise when the ad starts demanding your attention (you must look at that ad to get to the page you want) rather than being an offer.

It might help if companies that sell/provide ads to websites paid some attention to the reputation of the companies they carry ads for. I suspect that there would be a lot of demand from website/blog owners for a company that would give you ads to places that were screened for basic business reputation - a good web owner would like those ads, and thoughtful readers would be more likely to follow ads if they had some assurance it wasn't the latest Nigerian heir. More business for the companies advertising, more business for the company selling the ads, more respect for the people funding their website with ads, and more useful quality information for readers who are the end-users of the ads.

[j]

To all those who think the internet would be better without ads: your comments annoy me more than dancing aliens selling mortgages.

[MichaelK]

Ah, "Intellitxt technology." Doesn't even get as far as Adblock Plus on my browser, NoScript (noscript.net) is set to only allow top level domains by default, and the Intellitxt scripts are served from intellitxt.com and not the sites I'm actually looking at.

Why should I open my system up to scripting security breeches from other sites, or obnoxious link-jackings?

[Inquisitive Raven]

Amazon now offers its affiliates context links. It involves installing some javascript at the bottom of the page. I tried them on my Blogger blog and got one completely irrelevant and on semi-irrelevant link that way. I don't know how it compares to Intellitxt, but I found it plenty annoying because it didn't really do what I wanted it to do which was save me the trouble of creating a link for every book, CD, or DVD I referred to.