Comments on: How Gawker wants to monetize comments A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: robcypher Sat, 26 May 2012 17:59:08 +0000 LOL…Gawker has degenerated into total crap in the last 12 months (and even when it was at its best it was only “meh”, IMO). Not to mention that quite a few of their employees are total dicks. Of its 8 networks (io9, Deadspin, etc), it’s probably at No. 5 right now in terms of overall quality. Stuff like outing folks who don’t really deserve that (ie ABC reporter Robin Roberts) and cheap flame bait like “Obama is being patronizing to issues of gay marriage”, as well as the unnessecary overhaul of the comments section (which has led to stuff like some guy spamming every article with “Hot Pockets” ads, which I think is some sort of backlash from telling Drudge Report readers that Matt Drudge was gay after he linked to their site about the Roberts outing) makes me think that Gawker is on the way out in a year or two and owner Denton and co. will be slumming it up elsewhere (probably

By: handleym99 Thu, 24 May 2012 03:47:29 +0000 It seems to me the problem here is the constant problem with advertising — there are different types of it, and most of it is not of the fuzzy “informing the public, who want to be informed” variety that people like Denton praise.

First we have the “build the brand” advertising, the stuff that is slathered everywhere, so that you feel buying a Samsung TV or a Ford car, is a safe purchase. A cousin of this (which I do not understand, unlike the previous example) is Coca-Cola or P&G style advertising, for products that have little risk associated with purchasing them — they’re cheap, and if you don’t like Coca Cola Chocolate, you’ll never buy another can.
Point is, both of these seem to be based on being everywhere, not on being relevant.

Then we have all the emotion-driven advertising, the stuff that’s basically designed to exploit faults and flaws in human psychology — to persuade people trying to cut back on drinking to drink more, to persuade people trying to reduce weight to eat candy, to persuade people deep in debt to buy yet more clothes. I’m sure you can build conversations around those — god knows drunk people seem to love talking about the various things they have drunk one various occasions — but that seems like a recipe for getting to MySpace real fast.

Finally we have the “inform the consumer” type ad, but the problem here is that it’s a rare company indeed that wants a fully-informed consumer. By all means let the blog commenters rave about about the 1.5GHz A15 powered core of the new HTC Two, but we’d rather they not mention that it feels hot in the hand and runs out of battery after only about three hours of use.

Either you trust that your product is good enough to stand for itself in spite of these flaws (and there are ALWAYS flaws); or you start to institute censorship, and the tech elite (who are more interested in the actual technology than in how wonderful HTC is as a company) decide to move to one of a dozen tech sites that are rather more interested in the whole story, not just the positive parts. There is, after all, a reason these people abandoned the happy talk of the trade press for blogs in the first place.

By: arimelber Wed, 23 May 2012 16:56:06 +0000 Are these sponsored comments?

By: AngryInCali Wed, 23 May 2012 09:24:09 +0000 This seems almost impossible to get right. But if someone can recreate the S/N ratio of a good FB (or email or whatever) thread between friends into an open arena, there is a lot of money to be made.

By: FifthDecade Wed, 23 May 2012 02:07:07 +0000 To me, the least intrusive ad is the ad I’ll take the time to read, and that usually means Text Ads. Short text ads. Bullet points that I’m either interested in, or not. Flash and banners I block using browser extensions. But the problem is, ads are controlled by ad agencies, and ad agencies like earning what they earn – I mean, they’re stuffed with creative, clever people who deserve to be paid well – but the downside of that is they “fancy up” the message using graphics, clever writing, and lots of money. It’s overkill.

That’s why, despite it’s defocussed strategy, Google is still the leader in online ads. It’s simple, straightforward, and inoffensive. Yahoo is too full of in your face ads; Facebook is, well, a mess so I don’t think I’d recognise an ad on a FB page, while Twitter seems to me like the only one of these big social nets that has a chance of success – and it too is going down the Text Ad route.

One thing present in print media I don’t see so much on blogs – and this could be interesting – is the advertorial, as widely used in the Free Newspaper industry. In the UK FInancial Express use this method, and I am frequently clicking through from their email newsletter to read some interesting story about the Finance industry. I know they’re ads, but the clickable text is small, so I don’t start off irritated, and the articles relevant. I wouldn’t click on a shampoo link mind you…

By: DavidMcDavidson Wed, 23 May 2012 00:32:49 +0000 It just blows my mind that you took the time to write. About this. Whole thing.

By: KenG_CA Tue, 22 May 2012 21:13:15 +0000 Speaking of comment systems, can you guys update the one Reuters uses? It’s kind of outdated, ya know.

Every ad-supported website wants/needs to come up with a reliable way of monetizing their content. Given the absence of a barrier to entry in this business, there is a seemingly unlimited number of ads on the web. Not only does this ever-increasing supply of spaces to place ads lower the price of those ads, but they are also reducing the value of the ads. People are so bombarded with web ads that they are ignoring them. I read every one of Felix’s posts, but I can’t recall a single ad I have seen on this site (other than for Reuters). I don’t think most people are much different. There is not enough time to look at ads, because there is so much content.

At some point, advertisers will catch on to this. And then maybe a decade or so later, VCs will face up to reality and stop funding so many of these sites. But I think the answer might come when low cost electronic payment systems (without absurd margins for the payment processors) are ubiquitous, and websites can charge a cent or two per page view (or more for some sites). It doesn’t sound like a lot, but I have to think it will be more than the ad revenue they are going to be generating. Of course, that won’t be good for Facebook, as their users would not pay anywhere near that much (and Zuckerberg has promised FB will always be free).

By: Snertly Tue, 22 May 2012 20:50:46 +0000 One would think that if Mr Denton was to depend on commenter for his ad placement bread and butter, he might be a bit more accommodating toward those commenters. However, that has not been his practice.

The only new thing enabled by the new commenting system is a new level of noise brought by the disposable burner accounts.

On the other hand, thanks to a couple of overly zealous burner accounts, if you want to advertise Hot Pockets on Gawker, the ground work has been done.

By: tcolemanuf Tue, 22 May 2012 20:05:24 +0000 “Facebook’s revenue problems are based on much the same underlying issue: Facebook itself is highly interactive and immersive, but the ads you find there are not… it still hasn’t cracked the nut of working out how to make itself valuable to brand advertisers.”

Here’s a riff on Nick Denton’s thought process. Have the FB users provide the ads for Facebook. If I am Facebook, I go to all the S&P500 companies and say let me crawl your website and build an advertising catalog. Then I let the FB users tag their photos with whatever gear they have in the photo. It could be an F150, or her blouse from Banana. The person could just tag Banana and it would be a link to the main part of the site. Or, it could be as specific as a 4WD SuperCrew 145″ Harley-Davidson, forest green, and go directly to that product’s page.

It’s a word-of mouth advertising, using your friends as a source of product knowledge. This idea isn’t new or novel just taking a tupperware party to the twenty-tens.