DISQUS

michael walens · 1 year ago

i'm not sure what your point is. we don't need another derivative take on techmeme to understand what "louis said." he makes his points quite clearly.

mathewi · 1 year ago

Michael, if you don't understand what my point is, then I suggest you
go and read the post again -- maybe a little slower this time.
Kthnxbai.

Louis Gray · 1 year ago

Mathew, while it's not as limiting as 140 characters (Twitter), trying to get what should be a research paper into a blog post guarantees I couldn't be as detailed as I wanted.

For instance, I didn't discuss the increased use of ad blockers, or ad ignorance, which I think will impact Web advertising soon, if not already.

As an advertiser, I would want to reach an audience, period. If that audience is already at Blog A, and Blog B or C has 99% overlap with Blog A on audience or content, then I should leave B and C alone if Blog A delivers the message first or in a more reputable way.

Also... forgetting the duplicate content issue, advertisers commonly select a small subset of vehicles for their advertising, knowing targeting is much better than run of site or multiple sites.

Also... according to your rules, this is a bitchmeme? (Not my intent) Would it still count if I had posted it on Wednesday?

Ross McKillop · 1 year ago

I can see one possible reason not to advertise on Blog A - they charge WAY too much. Take a look at the laughable rates (and terms) of TC.

mathewi · 1 year ago

Louis, I appreciate that there's a lot more to the issue than can be
described in a post -- and I'm effectively agreeing with you that
advertisers want to target their ads, and that many bloggers aren't
going to make the cut. But I don't see why we should discourage them
from even trying -- how are we going to find new voices? And if they
can attract enough advertising to defray some costs, then I think it's
all good.

As for the "bitchmeme" thing, that was just my idea of a joke :-)

MG Siegler · 1 year ago

Louis - you should know as well as anyone that bitchmemes choose you, not the other way around ;)

Leigh · 1 year ago

uh huh. I take the point on advertising however, monetization does not only = advertising. Let's look at some marketing math shall we?

Louis Gray = tech flavour of the month = popularity = people want to know him = gets into the tech "it" crowd = they invite him to conferences, lunches, blog funny anecdotes about their fun meet ups etc. = job offers, board of director offers = more conference speaking gigs = increase in personal brand value...and eventually = increase in money.

Eric Berlin · 1 year ago

Mathew - This was spot on my take across-the-board as well. If you want to take the stance that some specific sites don't deserve the traffic / ad revenue they receive, that's a very different argument, but I don't think that was what Louis was trying to say.

By the way, I *think* michael walens' comment is pretty hilarious... right?

mathewi · 1 year ago

Unintentionally hilarious perhaps.

Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins · 1 year ago

I think that the bottom line is that if there's eyeballs of a serious amount in any web location, whether or not the site is providing original content or a simple regurgitation of the news, there deserves to be ads.

Where there is significant community engagement and a real sense of discussion that happens around news, then there deserves to be some monetization there as well. As of yet, we haven't found a way to really value that outside of the generic umbrella of 'sponsorship', but i'm hoping there's something there.

mathewi · 1 year ago

I think you are right, Mark.

John Wesley · 1 year ago

Oh my. The old blog about blogging and bloggers will blog about you theme. I don't see where the controversy is here.

Debbie Davies · 1 year ago

Shortly after being named Robert Scoble's favourite (English spelling) blogger, this guy ran out of ideas.

keith reid · 1 year ago

sorry but walens is quite right. your post is derivative and doesn't add any value. gray is quite clear about his POV

mathewi · 1 year ago

What a coincidence, Keith -- your comment is derivative and doesn't
add any value.