PDA

View Full Version : Having Advertisements on Web Sites.



PHAT
07-01-2004, 11:40 AM
Get over it.

One day, yes. But for now, remember this; the old BB was commercial free. Now we have to look at stinking ads for stinking captialist pig products like Yahoo. :evil: .

Matt

Google is about to float some % of their stock. Have you got over your distaste for Yahoo?
And just why do you have a problem with advertising on the BB? Can't you just filter it out mentally?
This is a serious topic for those of us who have web-sites that are starting to attract significant traffic. Should we go commercial?

starter

PHAT
07-01-2004, 12:00 PM
Such things are never a case of absolutes - all or nothing. In this case W e have to look at:
Quantity of ads
Who is the real customer and what is the real product?
Who is the piper?
At what point does commercial advertising start exerting a net negative effect on net human happiness?

My opening statement of my general postion:

Excessive advertisements are a symptom of excessive competition. If you believe the social pendulum of competition/cooperation needs to swing back toward cooperation, you should should not support competition by facilitating advertising.

There! I have set up a target. Do your best.




:twisted: DEATH TO LABELS! SMASH THE CULT OF THE BRAND! EAT THE RICH! :twisted:

skip to my lou
07-01-2004, 01:59 PM
Firstly, the Yahoo logo isn't "advertising". I would consider it an unfair link exchange. Im not selling "Yahoo" to you. Its a bloody search engine.

Secondly, the Onsmart logo, is advertising, though that little 100x28 picture is in return for hosting with such fast servers and fast connections and regularly updated software/hardware.

I've researched this matter in great detail.

Real "ads", which would have replaced the flash quotes (top right), just annoy people.

I've never clicked on one. I don't know anyone who has. I don't see the point of them.

Check yahoo search, google search, php.net, microsoft.com, sun.com etc, I guess they realised its a waste of bandwidth.

ursogr8
07-01-2004, 02:18 PM
Firstly, the Yahoo logo isn't "advertising". I would consider it an unfair link exchange. Im not selling "Yahoo" to you. Its a bloody search engine.

Thanks Jeo for your totally considered response.
Actually, I think I am on the other side from Matt Sweeney on this issue. To be honest, if someone (eg the local Real Estate guy) wants to give my Club funds for having a banner on our Club web-site, then I will consider. I/We can be bought; well, at least visibility to our traffic can be bought.



Secondly, the Onsmart logo, is advertising, though that little 100x28 picture is in return for hosting with such fast servers and fast connections and regularly updated software/hardware.


Good.
It is not always necessary to get direct funds for advertising; sometimes in-kind services are also valuable.




I've researched this matter in great detail.

Real "ads", which would have replaced the flash quotes (top right), just annoy people.

I can be bought, if the price is right.
But not tobacco adverts, my Committee has banned me on that one.





I've never clicked on one. I don't know anyone who has. I don't see the point of them.

Check yahoo search, google search, php.net, microsoft.com, sun.com etc, I guess they realised its a waste of bandwidth.


And the chesskit.com?


starter

PHAT
07-01-2004, 02:49 PM
Firstly, the Yahoo logo isn't "advertising". I would consider it an unfair link exchange. Im not selling "Yahoo" to you. Its a bloody search engine.


But Yahoo makes more money the more peopl use their site. Therefore I would call the Yahhoo link, internet touting, which is a form of advertising.

However, it is very small and I have no objection to it really.


Real "ads", which would have replaced the flash quotes (top right), just annoy people.

I've never clicked on one. I don't know anyone who has. I don't see the point of them.



Agreed.

I think the CHESSKIT site is to be commended for being so relatively ads-free.

ursogr8
07-01-2004, 02:55 PM
I think the CHESSKIT site is to be commended for being so relatively ads-free.

Hear. Hear

starter

PHAT
07-01-2004, 03:00 PM
Firstly, the Yahoo logo isn't "advertising". I would consider it an unfair link exchange. Im not selling "Yahoo" to you. Its a bloody search engine.

Thanks Jeo for your totally considered response.
Actually, I think I am on the other side from Matt Sweeney on this issue. To be honest, if someone (eg the local Real Estate guy) wants to give my Club funds for having a banner on our Club web-site, then I will consider. I/We can be bought; well, at least visibility to our traffic can be bought.


Perhaps you and I are much closer on this than you think. I too would probably take the local real estate barstard's filthy lucre. I would have to be satisfied that that the degree of "extra community" that the sponsorship helped generate, was greater than the stench of its sourse. It is a matter of being pragmatic without being an amoral utilitarian.

skip to my lou
07-01-2004, 03:02 PM
But Yahoo makes more money the more peopl use their site. Therefore I would call the Yahhoo link, internet touting, which is a form of advertising.

Though no one clicks the Yahoo link on Chess Kit, but we get atleast 5,000 hits through yahoo per month, which is roughly 5 or 6% of total hits per month.


I think the CHESSKIT site is to be commended for being so relatively ads-free.

Thanks.

ursogr8
07-01-2004, 03:09 PM
Perhaps you and I are much closer on this than you think. I too would probably take the local real estate barstard's filthy lucre. I would have to be satisfied that that the degree of "extra community" that the sponsorship helped generate, was greater than the stench of its sourse. It is a matter of being pragmatic without being an amoral utilitarian.

Matt

We are rather cosy then. Nice to be at one with one another.
8)
starter