Wednesday, March 22, 2017


The little Adsense blurb on my Blogger page has increased its estimate of what I could make a month from $12 to $13/month.  This changes everything.


Boxty said...

That's free Amazon Prime for a year so I'd take it.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Yeah, but it annoys even me. I figure it would be even more irritating to the rest of you.

Sam L. said...

But, AVI, you'd be RICH!!!! Wait... What Adsense blurb? I don't see one.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Whenever I go to the dashboard page behind the scenes, it tells me all kinds of things, like how much of my traffic comes from Russia and what percentage are using Chrome of Firefox.

james said...

And the referring sites...

I turned off javascript in my default browser--if I want to upload images I have to fire up a different browser. I haven't seen their blurb. I doubt that it would be tempting.

Donna B. said...

I'd like to hear AVI's and his commenters' takes on advertising in general, but specifically in 2 areas concerning blogging. First blogging area is Amazon affiliation. My take there is that I got so turned off by Althouse and Instapundit begging and linking daily crap specials that I resorted to Amazon Smile -- which gives a percentage of my purchases to the charity of my choosing. Right now that charity is my grandchildren's PTA.

The other area is blogging about how wonderful certain products are as a personal recommendation. Occasionally, these are hard to spot but not that often. Some bloggers that I respected 10 - 15 years ago are doing this regularly now. While they might not be pushing pseudos-scientific coconut oil (et al) cures, I certainly see a lot of that in posts shared by some of my more gullible Facebook friends. OK, these are mostly relatives. I suppose we're also friends.

This type of testimonial advertising is nothing new, but it used to be more recognizable. I remember newspapers from my youth containing pages clearly marked something along the lines of "paid advertising supplement" and they used a slightly different font from the regularly slanted news.

I think what irritates me the most are the bloggers who list 147 uses for coconut oil (it will cure or prevent everything!) and it's not made clear on their site that they are linking to sellers of coconut oil. That's just an example, of course -- but a recent one that prompted me to add to the list that coconut oil could also prevent traffic jams, unwanted pregnancies (while also promoting conception), and marital infidelity if dosed in the form of a coconut pie or cake once weekly.

Christopher B said...

I'm almost amazed we're still having this debate twenty odd years into the Internet age when for over a century we've accepted the presence of paid advertising in virtually every form of commercial print and broadcast medium including the ones we pay to obtain. Even the supposedly free public-funded media are full of sponsorship blurbs, remind us that 'viewers like you. Thank You!' contribute, and frequently disrupt their normal schedules to beg for donations.

While some ad formats are annoying I find it no harder to ignore sidebars or scroll past an occasional Amazon affiliate promotion than I do to turn the page in a magazine or newspaper, or use a TV commercial break to fulfill some biological needs. I object more to paywalls which seem less like an attempt to monetize web content and more like a way to control who can comment on it.

Whether I read a blog regularly is driven more by the information and entertainment content of the posts, and I don't add or subtract 'authenticity points' depending on whether or not advertising appears there.

Back in the day I remember Glenn Reynolds remarking he considered blogging (and probably now his pod-casting and other opinion writing) to be part of his professional obligation as a lawyer and professor to engage with, and educate, the community beyond his campus and profession. Ann Althouse has voiced similar motivation for her commentary. Remuneration for their professional skills or teaching does not degrade them so I don't see why payment for offering their opinions would have an impact, either. This seems to be something of a hobby for you but it certainly takes time that you could be using in other ways to perform the administrivia of running the site, and I think compensation is justified.

It's your blog but I say take the money and run! The fact that ads might annoy some people is a bonus.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

I don't even notice them anymore. They used to annoy me at Instapundit, but I decided he's just one of those promotional guys who always has another hustle going. I think some people actually depend on the extra income - neoneocon, for example.

I don't know how I would react if it actually were a lot of money. It might become tempting and I might be willing to annoy anyone. As it stands, it is a humorous reminder of how small my circle is. Just in case I was in danger of getting a big head.

Donna B. said...

I don't mind paid advertising. What I dislike is the verging on fraudulent testimonial advertising that doesn't clearly identify itself as advertising. Neoneocon doesn't do that, Megan McArdle didn't when she used to do her Christmas list with her Amazon link. Actually, Althouse doesn't do it either -- she's just pushy about it like she is most everything.

On Instapundit, I don't mind the links to Amazon's daily deals or sales, but when one of them is preceded by "In the mail" I remember the good old days when those were books that I thought he at least intended to read -- similar to his reader book plugs. The most recent one of those was by a traditional chinese medicine quack promoting supplements along with his sports physical therapy. That's in stark contrast to his promotion of Mark Rippetoe over the years. Since the quackery wasn't that evident in the title, I checked it out. I certainly HOPE The Instapundits aren't falling for that sort of crap. That link was misleading at best. Also, it may not be widely known that if you click thru on his link, all your purchases for the next 30 days (or until you click thru on someone else's link) are credited to him. Or rather to Helen. It's her Amazon affiliate account.

Knowing how the Amazon affiliate stuff works has led me to buy several items through neoneocon that aren't eligible for "smile" donations.

As far as other internet advertising, the only ones I mind are those that are autoplay videos or flashing gifs. Popups with hidden X to close are also annoying. These don't bother me enough that I use an ad blocker. Seeing ads on here wouldn't bother me at all. Also ads served through adsense or some other service like that don't imply that you are personally endorsing those products.

So yeah, go for it unless it's more time-consuming than it worth, of course.

Grim said...

There may have been ads at Grim's Hall at one time. I can't clearly remember. It was back when this sort of thing was new. I took a poll among the various co-bloggers and contributors based on the offer -- emailed, in those days, rather than an automated thing -- and went with whichever view was the majority. Obviously, if we did adopt them, they didn't prove to be worthwhile.

Maybe it was when PJ Media was new. They paid me to blog for their first year. Not a lot, but you know, anything is nice. The second year they realized that wasn't a money-making model, and abandoned paying bloggers for the most part.

Boxty said...

I will take google ads, paid promos, and links to Amazon over the trashy click bait ads at the end of Gateway Pundit and Power Line any day.

I don't mind bloggers making money. I enjoy the free ice cream. I'd like to see the host benefit from something other than just my insightful comments. :)