I don’t know whether you guys know it or not, but there are quite a lot of you — enough anyway to interest some advertisers into trying to wheedle you into buying their wares. Right at the moment we’ve been offered a contract to pay us money for the privilege of posting their ads in the blog along with the usual diet of chatter, reminiscence and such.
What’s wrong with the idea is that I think some of the ads would be for things like cigarettes, which give some of you serious tsuris. As a longtime ex-smoker I am confident that, after over a dozen years without lighting up once, there is no such thing as an advertisement that would make me backslide.
But I’m uneasy in the matter of putting temptation in the way of those who don’t want it. So do me a favor: If ads matter to you at all, please comment and say either “don’t care” or “don’t like it.” (Of course, if we do take ads all that stuff will run in addition to all the other stuff that you’ve been getting all along.)
Subrata Sircar says:
Don’t like it. Not that I personally care about ads, but I do care both about what gets advertised and the general sleaziness that seems to accompany the business. (In particular, ads for tobacco, alcohol, etc. seem like things I wouldn’t want to see here. Of course, it’s your blog.)
Ads for science-fiction magazines, publishing houses, etc. on the other hand, would likely both get a better hit rate and fit better.
May 3, 2012, 12:51 amMatt Platte says:
Don’t care. If they get too aggravating, I’ll figure out how to block them, probably by using dotjs.
May 3, 2012, 12:53 amDavid Goldfarb says:
I’d say I don’t care.
May 3, 2012, 12:57 amJoshua Zucker says:
don’t care.
I mean, if you think they look ugly or cluttery or get in the way of our appreciation of your content, then don’t run them. If you think the money is worth it to you, then run them. Personally I appreciate very, very much all the wonderful stories you’ve given us here without charging a cent.
Another possible approach would be to see what kind of money you get from running a donate button and no ads. I’d be happy to donate the cost of a paperback for the book’s worth of stories that you’ve given us here. Maybe enough readers are willing to do that, so you’d make more money that way than you would with the ads. Or, you could sell an e-book version (or paper book version, or both) of all the things you’ve written for the blog.
May 3, 2012, 1:30 amMichael Burgun says:
I appreciate all your unpaid efforts and think that you earning a small income from a few ads to be fair and just. In any event, for those that really object, it is a small effort on their part to disable the display of such ads in their browser!
May 3, 2012, 1:56 amJim Flanagan says:
I’m with Josh. But, also see no problems with adds.
May 3, 2012, 2:39 amMichael says:
*I* don’t care, much. I probably won’t see it. I discovered this when I was searching the web to find out details about a piece of computer hardware. Having navigated to the site, and just as I was leaving, I noticed the surrounding ads. They were pornographic. I don’t mean they were for pornography—they *were* explicit pornography (I don’t know what they were for—it probably _was_ for pornography—I didn’t bother to find out. I just went on my way in a somewhat bemused fashion). The point was, I literally did not see the ads. I suspect I’m not alone in my skills.
Which leads me to ask—who is getting paid here? Ultimately, the ad is useful if it connects a vendor with a buyer, but I suspect it connects a vendor of click-bait only with a hapless mark, and so no real value is flowing here. Or at least no value that I’d care to be associated with.
May 3, 2012, 3:41 amJane says:
Don’t care. Use the opportunity to find out whether your readers are affected by advertising. (Don’t pass this information on to the advertisers.)
May 3, 2012, 4:08 amMo says:
I would prefer not to see ads, because I think if you were effectively monetizing us, that would change the nature of the dialogue and the spirit of the community. (Although, of course, you may have a different view of those things from me.)
I’ve bought several of your books since I started following this blog, so in that sense you’ve already got some financial reward out of me
May 3, 2012, 4:52 ambookmole says:
Mmm. Surely you can decide what advertising goes on site? Then I would have no problems at all with it. Your site, your say-so.
If it was not under your control, then I would say Don’t do it!
May 3, 2012, 5:52 amWilliam Seligman says:
Irrelevant to me. I use an ad-blocker. It’s the third greatest thing the Goddess ever invented, right after sex and sarcasm.
May 3, 2012, 6:48 amLeo Petr says:
Was this contract offered via unsolicited email? If it was, it’s likely a scam. I’d suggest putting on Google Ads if you are interested in ads.
May 3, 2012, 7:15 amJennifer says:
I’m with Joshua. I don’t care for ads; the content of the ads is meaningless to me. But if running ads is financially meaningful for you, and allows us to get more of these wonderful stories, go for it.
May 3, 2012, 7:27 amLeRoy Pearle says:
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a cigarette ad on the internet. I know there are severe restrictions on advertising for tobacco in Canada (outright ban on direct advertising, no use of the word cigarette or tobacco in signage, packages hidden behind undecorated opaque doors in retail stores).. I wonder if there is some sort of national internet filter on cigarette advertising originating from outside Canada? Or if the tobacco companies refrain from plastering ads all over the internet because they feel (or know) it will get them in trouble in USA, Canada, other countries where advertising is restricted or forbidden?
Anyway, what worries me more is unethical advertising of weight loss scams, porn, get rich quick schemes and so on. I say if your advertisers are reputable, go for it. And how very considerate of you to ask you readers their opinion, thanks!
May 3, 2012, 8:03 amTracey Callison says:
Don’t care – they don’t show up over my RSS feeder anyways
If you’re getting a flat rate for it (and it’s attractive to you), people like me won’t matter to the bottom line. Joshua’s idea has some merit, though – people have had good luck with donate buttons. Worth trying before you commit to ads.
May 3, 2012, 8:33 amRobert Jennings says:
Don’t like it–at all!
Selling addictive poison is wrong. Why not open your ads to dealers in other similar goods; heroin sellers, for example, or perhaps accept an ad for a firm that sells unregistered weapons to inner city gangs. How about ads for kiddie porn? Please, draw a line. Are you so desperate for money that you have to accept ads from a company that sells addictive poison?
—Robert Jennings
May 3, 2012, 8:42 amFabulous Fiction Books
Jeff Gondek says:
Fred (and co), I think you can split the baby if you want.
https://www.projectwonderful.com/
Possibly less money than the others, but pretty much wholly classy.
May 3, 2012, 8:50 amKeith Graham says:
I successfully run Google Adsense ads on a dozen or so blogs. Typically you make between $1 and $10 on each 1,000 unique visitors per month, depending on the subject matter of your blog. Google Adsense ads can be text (you can prevent the showy graphic ads). The ads are keyed in on the content of the page. If you talk about cigarettes you might get cigarette ads.
Adsense is, by far, your most lucrative option. Adsense allows you to specify what kinds of ads that you want and you have lots of control over all aspects. You can put a “Tower” ad in the right hand column. You can include wide thin “leaderboard” ads at the top or between posts. Leader board ads are just links to keywords, are unobtrusive and pay well.
You can also include adsense for search on you site so that anyone who wants to search your site for some name or topic will also see some related ads on the side. There is even an adsense for mobile so that people reading your blog using their smart phone will see related ads.
If you are not already doing it, your book links on the right should be going through Amazon Associates so that you get an additional 4 to 6% when you sell a book on Amazon to a person who buys the book through the link. Amazon is good in that it drops a cookie when someone clicks on the Amazon Associates link and if the person does not buy your book, but buys something else in the same session, you still get your percentage. That small percentage is based on the price and makes your book sale a little more profitable.
One other way to monetize the blog would be to convert any of your out of print books to Kindle format and release them on Amazon Kindle Direct. Converting books to Kindle is a pain the first time, but when you’ve done it once it is not so bad. It may be worth it to pay someone to do the conversion. Amazon sells as many or more books through Kindle as it does paper.
Advertising is morally neutral as far as I am concerned. It is the carrying cost of publication. You obviously run the blog as a way to sell books, even if you do seem to have a good time doing it. Ads are not a problem with me. The site costs you time and money, so I have no problem with you pocketing a few bucks “beer money” from an ad or two.
Keith
May 3, 2012, 8:58 amDavid B. Williams says:
If the income is needed to maintain the site, go for it. But I also like the idea of a donate button.
May 3, 2012, 9:03 amDimSkip says:
Short answer: Don’t like…
It may be the “one small step for a man, one giant leap for advertising” that finally tips us over into the world of “The Space Merchants.”
__________
On the other hand, like the first commenter here, I would (probably) not horribly mind anything science (fiction) and/or publishing related. But tobacco products? Ugh… Forget it imo.
I don’t know what sort of cash you’re talking about, so I recognize it’s ultimately your call. I appreciate the demonstration of consideration for your readers in even asking. I suspect many (most?) bloggers would just go for it. Is there any way you can get pre-approval of the ads or a selective opt-out if you don’t like something in particular or get too many complaints? Probably not or probably not worth your time and aggravation to do so.
May 3, 2012, 9:06 amDan'l Danehy-Oakes says:
Not only do I not-care, I’m actively in favor of you making a bit of money.
May 3, 2012, 9:31 amJose Cabanillas says:
Don’t really care.
May 3, 2012, 9:33 amkaellinn18 says:
Don’t care. My brain automatically filters out and ignores ads on websites at this point.
May 3, 2012, 9:37 amKarl Berry says:
don’t like it. just in general.
More importantly: I saw Jem on the shelf at the bookstore when it came out, what, 35+ years ago. Have looked forward to every new book since (and I think I found all the old ones, too — Practical Politics 1972 was the last to show up
. Thank you so much for all the great reading for most of my literate life!
May 3, 2012, 9:40 amjef says:
Don’t Care – as long as they aren’t the kind that blare noises out of my speaker when I visit the site.
May 3, 2012, 10:15 amGood web hosting ain’t cheap, and if it helps pay the bills, more power to you.
Dave DuPlantis says:
Given those choices, I’ll vote “don’t like it”. I don’t mind ads in general, because after all, nothing is free, and of course there are ways not to see ads, but I think it would work better if you got to say which ads could run and which could not. (I’m assuming this would be a service that would run ads from a number of companies on your site.)
If you had the final say on each ad, then I’d vote “don’t care”.
May 3, 2012, 10:19 amJack William Bell says:
On the one hand I don’t care very much, so long as the ads are confined to a sidebar and do not include annoying ‘active’ ads like videos, popups, and ‘punch the monkey’ Flash ads.
On the other hand, I suspect you won’t make very much from the ads in the first place. The only winners in Internet advertising are ad brokers and sites capable of selling ads directly. Everyone else gets peanuts in return for making their site a less-enjoyable place for their readers.
On the gripping hand, if you were to limit to text ads (like Google adsense) and/or change your RSS feed to include the full text of the posts (with optional text ads at the bottom of the feed entries, like Boing Boing) chances are I wouldn’t even notice.
May 3, 2012, 10:23 amKen Houghton says:
I am told by people who receive ad revenues that you can tell the provider that you don’t want a particular advert to appear again on your site (can be blocked after first appearance).
Most of the ad-bots/algorithms appear to consider the content of the blog, so it’s unlikely you would get cancer-stick ads or the like unless you published a tribute to Pall Malls or Thank You for Smoking.
Give it a try; can always revert, and the blog staff deserve to be kept in cheese sandwiches.
May 3, 2012, 10:31 amChris McKitterick says:
People are pretty used to seeing ads online. It would be optimal if you could only accept ads for things relevant to your discussions or to your audience, but if you can’t control that, whatever. Ad servers that use annoying moving ads are another matter, of course. Google ads are just text, which would be the least in-the-way and always relevant to what’s on the page.
May 3, 2012, 10:41 amAnant Mischra says:
Don’t care.
May 3, 2012, 11:56 amAs long as the advertisers don’t impinge on the excellent quality of this blog, and your bold opinion pieces.
Chuk says:
Don’t care if there are or aren’t ads. It’d be nice if you had some veto power — I’d rather not see (e.g.) video ads or full-frontal nudity.
May 3, 2012, 12:26 pmStefan Jones says:
Advertising passes around me like wind around a stick.
Also, my browser screens out the worst of it . . . the pop-ups and weird animated Pug dogs.
So, if advertising would help pay for server fees, fire away.
May 3, 2012, 12:28 pmWalt G says:
As long as they don’t jump up and block the site, go for it.
May 3, 2012, 12:45 pmIt pleases me to think you could make a little coin and would remove a little guilt at enjoying your blog without paying you.
Paul Robichaux says:
Don’t care. Like Matt said, if they get too obnoxious, I’ll just filter them on my end. I’m happy to see you getting paid for your work here, even if it is through advertising.
May 3, 2012, 1:27 pmMiles Archer says:
i don’t care
May 3, 2012, 1:28 pmJim Washburn says:
I don’t care, I tune ads out anyway. Like having selective hearing.
May 3, 2012, 1:59 pmDaniel Daughhetee says:
Don’t care.
In the 14 years since I first trundled onto the internet, I’ve never once actually clicked on an ad, and am pretty good at just tuning them out. Anything that helps defray your costs and line your pocket a little is all right by me (even though I think I just made an argument for why that money might be wasted on the part of the advertiser).
May 3, 2012, 2:06 pmLawrence Watt-Evans says:
Don’t care. If you could use the money, go for it.
May 3, 2012, 3:25 pmBill Higgins-- Beam Jockey says:
I don’t care much.
But please, I urge you not to do business with Fowler Schocken Associates.
May 3, 2012, 3:27 pmKen says:
Don’t like it, very annoying. But business is business, and I wouldn’t stop visiting just because of some ads.
May 3, 2012, 4:38 pmCraig says:
Hi Fred!
May 3, 2012, 5:57 pmRun ad$ if it help$ the site. I run adblock so I don’t notice ads anyway…
Claire Cerling says:
I don’t mind most ads–however I must admit I wouldn’t like smoking ads. Hmmm. There are plenty of kids who read Pohl — many of them on my recommendation!
May 3, 2012, 6:28 pmI agree with Subrata — ads for anything even remotely related to “alternative” fiction, fantasy games, bookstores, gadget & tech places would be totally fine.
Richard says:
Don’t like it. For me it’s not a question of what’s being advertised but the insane ubiquity of advertising appearing on every available surface. You’ve written about this at length over the years; you know they’ll be projecting ads directly onto our retinas as soon as technology allows it. I learned to notice and be wary of the advertising mindset from your stories; it’d be a heck of a thing if your blog became one more place where we couldn’t get away from that mentality.
Now, if some enterprising publisher (SF or otherwise) purchased individual ads or otherwise sponsored the blog to promote their own books or magazines or websites — as Subrata Sircar mentions above — that might be another matter. That won’t produce the level of income promised by one of those ad mills…but it would be a much better alternative.
May 3, 2012, 7:40 pmBruce says:
I’ve never seen a cigarette ad on the internet. Not saying they don’t exist, but I’ve never seen one, even when I didn’t have ad blocking.
May 3, 2012, 8:36 pmPaula Helm Murray says:
Do not care. I did not start smoking mostly because the grandparents I saw most had a 4-pack-a-day habit (each) for the prime of their life and their house was disgustingly smoked-in. I didn’t really notice it until I was 13 or 14, that was kind of my age of really thinking about stuff.
Where I work now, the first time I went out to the smoking atrium to talk to a co-worker taking a smoke break she looked at me and went, “Aren’t you allergic?” me, “yes, but not to cigs. Don’t care, just never started.”
It’s a stupid habit. it killed all three of my uncles, same weird small-cell carcinoma took them all. My grandma lived to 90 and died of a medical error, my mom stopped in the 1960s and is a healthy 87 years old.
I got no dog in the race. In fact, I actually like the smell when a cig is first lit, especially Salems (it conjures my Grandpa John immediately to my mind’s eye).
May 3, 2012, 9:28 pmAndrew Johnson says:
Banner ads don’t bother me, but ads that look like posted content are rather obnoxious IMHO. Boing-boing has posts every few days (maybe weekly) from a watch manufacturer that are like that, and their presence causes me to mistrust some of their other content in case it too is really a hidden advert.
Thanks for asking!
May 3, 2012, 9:33 pmMichael Walsh says:
Don’t care & I don’t smoke. I’ve found it fairly easy to ignore ads on web pages.
May 3, 2012, 10:45 pmGoljerp says:
It depends on the *kind* of ads, for me. Blinky, animated ads which start blaring music or expanding if your mouse goes near them? Bad. Static, text-based ads (or tasteful pictures)? I don’t mind.
May 3, 2012, 10:48 pmTAD says:
Don’t have any problem with the ads. I figure a smart publisher might at least try to sell some of YOUR BOOKS on your blog — but it sounds like those aren’t the kind of ads you expect we’re going to be seeing…?
May 4, 2012, 4:39 amJason says:
I don’t care so much about the ads themselves, but the Internet baggage that comes along with it. The ad business on the Internet is conjoined with the business of tracking all of our activities and interests on the Internet.
However, in this your site would be no different than any other site that runs ads and I like the idea that you could draw revenue from the site.
May 4, 2012, 6:45 amJim Braiden says:
Don’t care.
May 4, 2012, 7:45 amscott swisher says:
I don’t care, as long as they don’t interfere with the content of the website.
Advertising is part of life and you deserve to gather a little income for your efforts.
May 4, 2012, 8:05 amDale says:
don’t care
May 4, 2012, 8:36 amEric says:
Don’t Care.
I’m with Joshua above. If you want the money and YOU don’t think they uglify the site, go ahead.
I won’t quit reading either way.
May 4, 2012, 8:41 amDavid Strom says:
Don’t care.
May 4, 2012, 9:15 amBela says:
I am pretty good at ignoring ads so I don’t care too much, so long as they aren’t the kind that hijack the whole page just as I’ve started reading and then make me search for the button to close the thing. Otherwise, I don’t think ads could distract me from your words.
May 4, 2012, 9:34 amCarl Hommel says:
Take the money and run. Anyone who doesn’t want to see online ads can block them via a browser plugin.
May 4, 2012, 10:41 amMike Goldberg says:
I don’t care. I tend to ignore annoying ads. Take the money and run. You can always donate it to a good cause. Just keep on writing.
May 4, 2012, 11:22 amLarry Headlund says:
I’m a hardened consumer. I can take it.
May 4, 2012, 12:20 pmIf it gets too much like The Space Merchants there is always Venus.
Richard R says:
It’s not worth the money, let us enjoy the blog with the advertising, of anything.
May 4, 2012, 12:40 pmjohn miller says:
I’m all growed up.
Whatever you advertise won’t persuade me to buy it.
Mind you, no Nicole Kidman adverts, thank you very much; I don’t want to test that theory to destruction…
May 4, 2012, 1:20 pmJocala says:
Make money while you can. Banner ads are ok, but please no pop-ups,pop-unders or obstructive “bars”.
May 4, 2012, 1:50 pmAlan Robson says:
I’m strongly opposed to ads. They get in the way…
–
May 4, 2012, 3:55 pm-Alan
JJ Brannon says:
I prefer Donate buttons myself. You’re in the writing biz and you should be compensated as much as I’ve appreciated the free ride thus far.
Kristine Kathryn Rusch’s site — don’t got there now because a hacker attack infected the host — both accepts donations and offers/links electronic downloads of her stories.
Pournelle’s accepted subscription donations for decades.
JJB
May 4, 2012, 8:00 pmJay Borcherding says:
I don’t care. And if booze or tobacco companies want to be included, I still say do it.
May 4, 2012, 9:16 pmJ.J.S. Boyce says:
If you have a chance to make some money off of what you’re doing here, you should do it. You’re a professional writer and deserve to be paid for your work, which absolutely includes the excellent blogging you do here.
Besides, SF readers tend to be bright. We’re not going to get addicted to cigarettes based on an ad here, or send all our money to the psychic network.
May 4, 2012, 9:31 pmRobert Nowall says:
Wow, sixty-six comments, as of this look-see-in…you wouldn’t think something so non-political of a subject would generate such passionate response, and so many…
I’d go for it, if you could exercise some portion of control over ad content—the “cigarette” thing, for one—it’s money in the pocket, after all. Besides, one learns an awful lot from at least glancing at ads. A while back, I pawed through some on-demand reprints of pulp SF mags…the ads told me what a different world the people of the early 1940s lived in.
Besides, once in a while, there’s an ad for something that, when I see it, I realize I really want…
May 5, 2012, 4:42 amJohn Armstrong says:
If the money matters, go ahead. I don’t mind. I’d second the recommendation for Google ads,too. Works good for me on a diabetes site I wrote
May 5, 2012, 11:29 amAaron says:
I don’t care. If you can make a few dollars with it, by all means, do so.
May 5, 2012, 1:01 pmBarry Gold says:
Go ahead and do whatever you’re comfortable with. If tobacco ads make you uncomfortable, I would think you could tell whoever is placing the ads, “anything except tobacco (and whatever else bothers you enough that you don’t want it on your blog).”
If they won’t do it, maybe there’s a more adaptable web advertising service. And if nobody will, I guess you just have to choose between getting paid for something that makes you uncomfortable and not getting paid. That’s something that lots of people who work have to deal with, nothing unique there.
In the end, it’s your choice and I wouldn’t fault you whatever you decide.
May 5, 2012, 1:47 pmAnne Onimus Wench says:
Don’t like it.
(Interesting how the cultural default seems to be “Monetarize everything.” Also interesting is the fact that ads for things you oppose tend to appear, usually next to your stated opposition.)
May 6, 2012, 10:14 amGregory Benford says:
DON’T CARE Fred!
May 6, 2012, 5:37 pmSteve Boyko says:
Don’t care. It’s your blog, do what you want.
May 6, 2012, 9:44 pmKent Cline says:
As long as you think they are a greater benefit than liability, by all means run the ads.
May 12, 2012, 6:59 pmNeil in Chicago says:
non olet
I feel safe in assuming you know why and how to read a contract.
June 24, 2012, 5:37 pm