<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Mathew's comments - Latest Comments in Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:39:02 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-356824</link><description>What a coincidence, Keith -- your comment is derivative and doesn't&lt;br&gt;add any value.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:39:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-356802</link><description>sorry but walens is quite right. your post is derivative and doesn't add any value. gray is quite clear about his POV</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">keith reid</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 20:13:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-355306</link><description>Shortly after being named Robert Scoble's favourite (English spelling)  blogger, this guy ran out of ideas.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Debbie Davies</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 02:16:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-353213</link><description>Oh my. The old blog about blogging and bloggers will blog about you theme. I don't see where the controversy is here.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jwesley</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:26:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-353175</link><description>Louis - you should know as well as anyone that bitchmemes choose you, not the other way around ;)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">MG Siegler</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:19:20 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-353173</link><description>I think you are right, Mark.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:19:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-353152</link><description>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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">rizzn</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 14:15:25 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352968</link><description>Unintentionally hilarious perhaps.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:49:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352964</link><description>Louis, I appreciate that there's a lot more to the issue than can be&lt;br&gt;described in a post -- and I'm effectively agreeing with you that&lt;br&gt;advertisers want to target their ads, and that many bloggers aren't&lt;br&gt;going to make the cut.  But I don't see why we should discourage them&lt;br&gt;from even trying -- how are we going to find new voices?  And if they&lt;br&gt;can attract enough advertising to defray some costs, then I think it's&lt;br&gt;all good.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;As for the "bitchmeme" thing, that was just my idea of a joke  :-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:48:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352902</link><description>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. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;By the way, I *think* michael walens' comment is pretty hilarious... right?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Eric Berlin</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:38:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352877</link><description>Michael, if you don't understand what my point is, then I suggest you&lt;br&gt;go and read the post again -- maybe a little slower this time.&lt;br&gt;Kthnxbai.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">mathewi</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:33:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352843</link><description>uh huh.  I take the point on advertising however, monetization does not only = advertising.   Let's look at some marketing math shall we?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Leigh</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:26:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352781</link><description>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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">rossmckillop</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:17:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352339</link><description>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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;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.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Also... according to your rules, this is a bitchmeme? (Not my intent) Would it still count if I had posted it on Wednesday?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">louismg</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:01:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve advertising?</title><link>http://www.mathewingram.com/work/2008/04/18/bitchmeme-do-blogs-deserve-advertising/#comment-352313</link><description>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.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">michael walens</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:56:21 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>