Journalism
The Double-Bottom Line on In-Text Ads
You may have noticed double underlined links on sites that create a pop up advertisement when moused over. These are “in-text” advertisements, and they’re increasingly appearing on content sites to generate additional revenue.
For content providers, the question remains whether additional short-term bursts of ad revenue will be justified against the potential decrease in brand affinity. Since the ads work under the guise of a regular-old hyperlink, some visitors are completely turned off after clicking on them.
From a usability standpoint, they’re a real pain. Text becomes a pop-up minefield with any slight mouse movement touching one of these ads triggering pop-up advertisements. This creates friction for the visitor, who’s simply trying to do what they came to a site for: to read the content.
The content’s credibility is also put at stake. Writers, and journalists in particular, are expected to be objective. These in-text advertisement pop-ups are further muddying the lines between editorial integrity and the sales team’s agenda, while posing as unbiased writing.
Speaking of “fair and balanced,” FoxNews.com adopted this measure and claims that they think its great. According to The Wall Street Journal, “FoxNews.com says it doesn´t consider in-text ads to be advertising, because they help provide information about the topic.”
Of course, many bloggers and other writers strive to make money for their work. When the content becomes the ad, visitors may not want to come back. Who in their right mind wants to actively read an infomercial in disguise when they can passively watch one on TV?
The bottom line is that these ads may present a good opportunity to monetize your content, but you risk losing credibility — and once that’s damaged, it’s not easily repaired.
Related Posts:
Written by:Ronald Patiro
Don’t Turn Over Reader List To IRS Rules Judge Hall
Can the IRS obtain information about what you read on a website even if you have done nothing wrong?
I didn’t think it was possible until I read “Order on Tax Evasion Site Blocked” in the NY Times:
On Friday, Judge Peter W. Hall temporarily blocked the portion of the order requiring Mr. Schulz to turn over to the government the names and identifying details of people who had obtained information at the Web site on how to stop federal tax from being withheld from their paychecks.
My position is clear, I’m a card carrying member of the ACLU. Do you think the IRS should be able to get that list?
Related Posts:
Written by:Jeffrey Eisenberg
SEO Ethics: New York Times is Challenged
Clark Hoyt, the New York Times public editor, serves as the readers’ representative. In his Op Ed column, he writes:
A BUSINESS strategy of The New York Times to get its articles to pop up first in Internet searches is creating a perplexing problem: long-buried information about people that is wrong, outdated or incomplete is getting unwelcome new life.
People are coming forward at the rate of roughly one a day to complain that they are being embarrassed, are worried about losing or not getting jobs, or may be losing customers because of the sudden prominence of old news articles that contain errors or were never followed up.
Archived material is being pushed to the top of the search engine result pages by the Search Engine Optimization (SEO) efforts of the New York Times. That is considered good business, especially for a website that makes money from displaying ads and the reader gets what might be relevant information. However, the practice raises a new crop of questions about journalistic ethics:
- What is their responsibility to archive all of their published works?
- Do they have a responsibility as a news organization to follow up on all published material to verify outcomes and then link it back to the older articles?
- Should they allow people the ability to comment on this dated material?
- Should they allow for the editing of the archives at a later date to change what was originally published as news?
- Should some material just be deleted and forgotten in this digital age?
- Whose responsibility is it to monitor and influence (if possible) what the search engines say about people?
Please let me know what you think about these new ethical challenges for journalists. What are our responsibilities as bloggers? Do the readers even care when things have finally been resolved?
P.S. If you’re in the mood for contemplating ethical challenges, Marshall Sponder raises another large one: What’s an honest SEO person to do when Universal Search clogs up SERPS with results they can’t manipulate?
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Bloggers vs. Journalists: Can’t We All Just Blog Along?
Without question, this is an exciting/nerve-racking time for journalism (or anything that closely resembles it). But when South African Sunday Times columnist David Bullard took a swing at the blogosphere last Sunday, some top bloggers hit back with a vengeance.
Here’s a taste of what Bullard had to say:
It’s comforting to know that, should…I decide to take a sabbatical, there’s no shortage of people available to hold the fort. The only snag is the quality, or lack of it.
Allow me to explain… I used to play air guitar with a band called Deep Purple. My playing was perfect, I had attitude and I even smashed my air guitar at the end of the number. The reason I played air guitar is that I couldn’t play real guitar very well so I was forced to dwell in this fantasy world where my guitar playing meant something only to me. I should point out that this was years ago when I was still young and foolish. These days I play air tenor saxophone, which is far more challenging.
Most blog sites are the air guitars of journalism. They’re cobbled together by people who wouldn’t stand a hope in hell of getting a job in journalism, mainly because they have very little to say. It’s rather sad how many people think the tedious minutiae of their lives will be of any interest to anyone else.
It’s even sadder when someone reads them.
Can’t you smell the smug? Or is that cigar smoke? Either way, Bullard’s blog-bashing was a massive success.
What’s Next Blog called Ballard a “yellow journalist” as well as–my personal favorite–a “dead tree journalist.”
Eric Berlin responds, insisting Bullard should have “turned on his brain” before attacking the blogosphere, calling the piece “hateful” and “condescending”:
The column turns nearly xenophobic at its end, referencing “some anonymous, scrofulous nerd pumping meaningless drivel into cyberspace at all hours of the day and night simply because he can’t get a girl to sleep with him.”
Bullard’s column is called “Out to Lunch.” Indeed.
In all fairness, Berlin’s blog is called Online Media Cultist–which no doubt would only make Bullard snicker that much more.
Things took a turn for the hilarious today when What’s Next Blog followed-up with Bullard’s YouTube response to his blogger critics.
Is this link-baiting, though, or just an example of two sides trying to frame the argument in his own language (i.e., the “link-baiters” vs. the “wannabe columnists”)?
As a music journalist-turned-marketer/blogger (who also plays a mean air guitar), I find this especially tragicomic. It also evokes Jeffrey Eisenberg’s post about L.A. Times columnist Joel Stein’s insisting he doesn’t care to see readers’ comments. On the contrary; not only does Bullard want to read your comments, he’s now got retaliation fodder–a columnist’s/blogger’s best friend.
Still, all the publishing of editorial content online… The scouring of blogs near and far to find related opinions… The YouTube posting… Sounds like blogging to me.
Should we assume that Bullard’s in sad shape, or has hit a dry spell in his personal life? Nah…
Welcome to the blogosphere, Mr. Bullard! 
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
