And why shouldn't we be able to criticize Dooce for her actions? Her readers are who made her blog popular. We linked to her. We promoted her. Now we are expected to pay for her family's income by enduring a page full of Advertisements with very little individual content.

If this had happened a year ago, and we had been given a choice, I would have gladly paid a yearly fee for a NON-Ad version. There was actually a discussion on her blog (when it still had comments) about this and many agreed with the idea. As it stands, Ads or not, her writing has been the same negative blather month after month, and I'm surprised people are still reading her at all. The Ads would have certainly reassured me that I am not missing anything new.

Hi Keri!

I'm seeing this from both sides and I think you'll eventually profit either way you choose to go.

I respect you very much for your choice to be ad-free. That said, if you should change your mind or for any reason feel like experimenting with ads I think you deserve the money. I'd love to see corporations help support one of my favorite artists. Corporations may be led by unscrupulous people at the top but ultimately we make up the corporations through our choices in the same way we as citizens make up the government through votes. So we are the corporations. Or at least responsible for what they do. We are the government. Or at least victims of voter fraud. We can change them both. Why not let them help us while we do?

Can we look to nature for a solution to this ad dilemma? - I've got a picture in my mind of a plant (artist) needing to be watered (supported)- - and fertilized (paid!). And we all know what fertilizer is. Poop. :/ So maybe banner ads can be looked at as blog fertilizer.

Last night I remembered your post and really thought about what you'd said. It made me picture ads literally taking away from a blog. They make the blog portion of the newly ad-addled blog smaller and squeezed and limits it on ones computer monitor. Part of it becomes an eyesore. The blog itself gets framed in ads and in doing so shrinks or gets condensed. But I don't know if that taints its content. Have you ever put a beautiful painting in an ugly frame? Sometimes it makes the painting look even better! It's all how you view it. Maybe we could look at blog ads in this way. Maybe someone could even create a piece of software which prevents them from being seen without the companies knowing! ;p People with tivo can fast forward through commercials. I record a lot of shows on my old vcr and watch them the next day so I can fast forward. I can watch shows, save time and not be bombarded by commercials. So there are ways around ads.

Or we could look at it this way - - someone just coming to a blog for the first time might not even realize someone was getting paid from the ads at all. They might just think the person is getting a free site from tripod or something.. you know what I mean? It might look cheap or unprofessional or something but most people probably don't know the ins and outs and the marketing side of blogs, how many hits the site gets and how much said blogger makes from each ad per month etc. until you might point it out to them in a post. And even then, that particular post will eventually get buried in time. So most people won't know people are getting paid. So why should you feel guilty or bad about taking money? As long as you're not saying "Oh I just used the new Crest toothpaste and it's so flouride-enriched!" it's all good.

Perhaps we should look at blogs like tv channels or radio stations, every show is funded by corporate advertizing except pbs which has pledge drives, donor grants, government funding. A good model for you to follow might be found at kexp.org. They're one of the best radio stations on the planet and they have pledge drives. They then get to play whatever music they want. 99.9% of other stations can't play anything they want. They're bought. So how could you have a pledge drive? Put up a paypal donate button? Do people actually donate? I don't know. Could you ask people for money to help pay for your site traffic? I wouldn't consider it begging. Could you have members which pay a once a year fee and perhaps you could send them an art print? You have chosen to promote your book which I think is a terrific idea. On this I'd like to add my 2 cents.. I'm looking at the size of your wish jar journal banner at the top of your blog which is 688x190 pixels and your book icon is only 71x90 pixels. Please make your book icon bigger, yo! I'd like to see it at least twice as big. Just thought I'd put in that request.

Ok, I've babbled enough.. thanks for letting me ramble and ruminate on an issue which apparently strikes a chord with me. I like your style and the way you think and the bottom line is your blog is great. More power to you ad-free or not!!

Keep on doodling. :)

so im probably the only one out there who think shtat "dooce" is totally offensive. but that's because she has to bash her previous religion ans swear like a sailor every other sentance.

so i for one am glad that she is obviously getting less "fans" who claim that she is "such a good writer"

and im a little dazed that her blog effected you so much. you seem so far from her, im glad that you disagree.

Interesting post Keri. One thought to consider, and my apologies of someone has already expressed this, is that Dooce's site is very different from yours. Although it wouldn't bother me if you or anyone posted ads on their site (afterall, aren't we freelancers truly all whores to "the man" in the end?), the content of your site would definitely be much more in conflict with such a thing. At any rate, I am okay with anyone who can make their living doing something they enjoy, and if that means allowing advertisers on their blog - so be it. Especially when that advertising is not influencing content. I think it would take a very talented writer to keep me interested in a blog who's content was influenced directly by its advertisers, but outside of hurting design, sidebar ads don't force me to read or click on them.

Just my 2 cents. It is a noisy world, but when I want to escape, the internet is not the place I go to!

All the best, and thank you for sharing your work and world with us - with or without ads!

Amy

As a long time reader of Dooce, I feel conflicted about the whole thing. The day I saw the redesign, without even thinking, I instinctively closed the screen, and took her off my very small blogroll. I read on a comment on Eicherdesign's blog that she is charging

$500/1 week
$900/2 weeks
$1600/1 month
$5000/3 months

I think it would bother me significantly less if she was not making (what looks like) a six figure income annually off of the blog, but then why the hell should I care what she makes. It's her damn blog and she is entitled to do whatever she wants with it. She's a good writer, I'm sure she works hard at what she does. I am just annoyed that the site I loved so much looks ugly and tacky now. If you are relying on those ads to pay the bills I think it is inevitable that you will compromise your craft to bow to them. I am reminded of the movie "Wayne's World?" when they sold out. Seriously though, I wonder things. Like if Nikon D-70 will start paying her a commission, or if they already have. I wonder if there will be subtle plugs for other things on her site...

Regardless, I wish her luck, and hope it works for them. I just don't think I'll keep reading.

I think we'll see what this advertising gig was all about when Heather's husband gets another job outside the house.

I mean, if all this really *is* to temporarily support the family during this time then once Jon is making a big salary again, the ads will disappear, right?

In the meantime, I won't be visiting Dooce every day like I used to. The whole site seems like a sell out to me now. Quite frankly, I'm surprised her daily posts aren't continued on separate pages so that more advertisers can squeeze in.

November 5 and the discussion still continues. I am here for my second helping. I enjoy reading blogs but what I like are the tiny windows into someone else's very different life. Advertise/don't advertise....it just doesn't matter....it just doesn't matter (Bill Murray in Meatballs). And to most people it probably doesn't. If someone were to have ads on the sites that I visit, I don't even know if I would notice - it's not what I'm there for.....

Consider this...
Keri, I posted earlier on this topic how peaceful and relaxing your site is...and why I enjoy it so. With all of the talk about Dooce's site, I visited it. It was ok...interesting to read.

But...

I made a mistake...

I was looking at all of the advertising on her site, and was curious about the one for 'J.Cruel'...

I clicked on it...

and it was a video about J.Crew and their use of animal fur in their clothing line...and the

horrific...

and I do mean...horrific

treatment of animals for their fur....

I watched the video in horror...truly unable to believe that what I was watching was real...the scenes...the commentary...the unspeakable torture...

I cried...

and I ached...and I cried...

Today, I am still haunted by what I saw. Yes, the power of the ad worked, for I will never buy fur products...(never have, assuredly never will now)....

But...I am haunted by what I saw...and disgusted at mankind for what they do in the name of 'fashion'...

I left that site with angst....

and I won't go back to it ...

Again..Keri...as I said earlier...thank you for having a peaceful, relaxing, breathing place for me to visit...enjoy myself...and want to come back to again and again...

i do wonder what henry miller would have said. i know i agree completely with you, keri, in questioning what advertisements, commerce and money does to the artist in us. i know, for my own part, that too much visual input from tv, magazines, billboards, etc, make the creative output difficult. i can't write when my world gets too cluttered and full of things i didn't really put there myself. thank you for this post. it was a very good one.

So funny, on Lobbylu.com they're talking about the exact same topic, but the general opinion there is completely different than here.

Keri,

I've been reading you and Dooce for the last few years, and thoroughly enjoy both of you. Sounds like you are struggling with perhaps finding another source of income, and might be considering ads? I don't know. I do know that the one message you've effectively been sending out for years is Follow Your Heart, or, in other words, Be True To Yourself. Dooce does the same thing in her own way, by really just letting her life hang out there.

I noticed the recent increase of ads on her site and even curiously scrolled all the way down the page to see how far they actually went, trying to understand how this might affect her writing, which has changed a bit in the last few months, like maybe she is editing out the raw side, or maybe she is just softening because she is so in love with her life and family. Who knows?

Does it have something to do with advertising? Maybe. Whatever it is, I will keep reading and have no problem ignoring the ads because I have learned to filter out noise and unnecessary (to me) information in this information-overload and noisy world I live in (my perception after living in large urban centres most of my life).

If you feel placing ads on your site will compromise your integrity as an artist, then don't. If you feel the extra money will enhance your ability to be an artist, because we all know that financial stress can stranglehold creativity, then please do what you feel is right and necessary.

I truly admire that you question advertising and the role it plays in society, especially the values it promotes. I have long admired your integrity and struggle for inner strength and self-belief. Evidently in the eyes of some others, if the below comments are any indication, placing ads on your site may compromise this public persona that draws so many of us to your site. You may lose the respect of some. But, really, in the end, you, too, need to always be true to and respect yourself. It's when you stop that all you've written and promoted the last few years becomes a little less meaningful.

Thanks for all the thought provoking!

xo

i just wanted to say that i really enjoyed this post, and i loved reading everyone's opinion on the matter. it has my head swimming with pros and cons for both sides.

Chloe has a point. On Drawn! I saw a Google ad for the longest time, targeting aspiring writers. This company would provide illustrators. Very cheap. And the writer would get all the copyrights on the drawings. Embarrassing.

Cori: Your site design is very pretty, and your ads are not overwhelming at all to me. I see a big difference between your site design & ads, and that of Dooce. Just the way I see it.
Anyway, like Leafy, my only concern about Google Ads, is though it is content specific - it's not like you can actually choose companies you don't want to advertise, or hand pick those you do. That's my personal issue with it. Like Leafy said, the potential for "random ads to products that they not only do not believe in, but may be morally opposed to". Like the forum Leafy mentioned, I would be embarrassed if I used Google Ads, and my pages where I attempt to express my concerns about the anti-bacterial craze, would be full of ads that were for anti-bacterial products containing triclosan.
Quantity, quality, and context being the key factors.
Other sites might not run into these problems with Google ads, of course, and if that's the case, that's fortunate.

okay...i can't resist one more observation:
Dooce's writing and her blog/web site mirror each other:
her online personna is what i call the "sarcastic-exaggerated-self-confessor" that is "all the rage"---and the blatant commercialism on her web site, mirrors the attitude of the author---it's a package that obviously sells to a large portion of "the main stream" and most of us other writers/artists find ourselves outside of the main stream---we are uncomfortable with blatant commercialism.

Self-promotion is another thing all-together. Dooce is no more creative than many others of us...she simply "strikes a cord" with a lot of people--was in the right place at the right time-- and is chosing to "captialize" on it---web sites are created for that purpose and those of us (myself included) who see her presentation as junk food (and i consider most of her content to be titilating junk food) can "vote" our opinion of her creation and commercialism by simply chosing not to visit her website and certainly by not clicking on any of her ads.

i have no doubt that there will soon be the "Dooce book"...and it will mean no more to me than the majority of stuff published today.

sometimes quality work does receive the attention and monetary reward it deserves, but the majority of the time mass market success rarely equates with quality. in the meantime, Heather B. Armstrong gets to thumb her nose at those of us who work hard to maintain our principles, dignity and integrity--principles Armstrong mocks when they do not match her own.

sorryabout the accidental double post

my feeling about this subject is:
MODERATION IN ALL THINGS

my opinion:
Dooce's blog "goes over the top" but she's laughing all the way to the bank...
keri's self promotion does not go over the top and is very different than "Advertising with a captial A".
I stop visiting blogs that are swarming with ads...it just isn't as fun anymore.

my feeling about this subject is:
MODERATION IN ALL THINGS

my opinion:
Dooce's blog "goes over the top" but she's laughing all the way to the bank...
keri's self promotion does not go over the top and is very different than "Advertising with a captial A".
I get easily turned off by the ads now appearing on some blogs...mostly because you can tell that the blogger has little control of the content.

in other words "perception is everything" and, again, in my opinion: blogs should be about community and sharing and yes, making a few bucks is okay.

i stop visiting blogs that become online versions of conde nast magazines...in other words, so full of ads you have to search for the content...

all of that said:
i've created one blog that is purely about sharing and wanting to be part of a community...however, i've also created a "selling blog" that is clearly about selling my art work and soon i will announce it, softly, on my first blog--creating a link that can easily be ignored.

i'm also creating a blog to support and promote a radio show i will be involved with, and i have decided that until paid advertising can be more subtle and less in your face, i do not want it on my personal blog.

Today I have a big illustration in a newspaper. If this newspaper would not print ads, the money people pay for the nespaper would barely cover the cost of the paper and the ink. Thus I am paid with ad money. I don't suppose you already draw a moral line at illustrating for a newspaper. Although illustrating for newspapers brings in ad money, only indirectly. Why the hesitation in eliminating the middle man and going for the ads yourself?

I will no longer read Dooce's blog. The ads are really too much and they totally overshadow the writing.
I see nothing wrong with Keri's ad for her own book. After all isn't a website or a blog meant to be a self promotional tool? Someone posting a link to a piece of their artwork, writing or something that they believe in is a completely different issue from someone who posts random ads to products that they not only do not believe in, but may be morally opposed to.
I used to belong to an eating disorders support group on a popular website. Each page had random ads that would come up - including many many ads for diet and weight loss products. The ads were dangerous triggers for a group of people who were doing their best to overcome body image issues. The moderators of the support group had no control over the advertising and eventually the group shut down.
I agree with Velvet Brick. I come here to read in peace. Keep up the great work Keri!

I'm just throwing this into the mix, as a person who's paid for her site hosting and more over the past year with Google ads. I've read a few of the comments here, but this is not in response to any one person, just my general opinion on the subject. I posted the following on my own blog just today when I learned that it was controversial to host ads on blogs:

As I see it, it's a win-win situation. People are not forced to click on the ads and can concentrate on my writing and pictures if they choose. I have full confidence that readers who frequent my site can make up their own minds, and I know from communications with some of them that they are a bright and discerning bunch, informed enough not to be sucked in blindly and unthinkingly by a small Google ad UNLESS they're interested in what's being advertised.

It's not as if Exxon Oil or Clear Channel is chomping at the bit to get an ad on Cori Morenberg's blog! If I did see such corporate giants popping up, I'd be the first to cringe and then quickly delete them. But, if I can help one of my visitors find a reasonably priced, high quality kiln or slab roller, a new source of gemstone beads to use in their jewelry designs or a publication to submit their freelance writings and photographs to, I feel it's an added bonus for visiting the site once in awhile.

Moreover, if these types of ads enable any artist, writer, or cottage industry entrepreneur out there to channel more of their time and energy into working at what they love and spending time with friends and family, I say rock on and wave my fist high in unity with Dooce and all the bloggers out there changing the nature of our culture and economy by taking a capitalist convention, once only available to those with the most money and power, and turning it on it's head by making it their own.

I feel that just as with many choices me make, this one has to do with taking responsibility and maintaining a balance. You can be sure you'll never click on my site and be held captive by a full-screen animated ad that you'll be hard-pressed to find the link to "skip ad and go straight to site."

I agree with Connie.. I can only imagine that this time together will be a good thing for all of them, and that her husband will at some point get another job. I haven't seen Heather's mentions of doritos or cheetos as an advertisement at all ~ she's hardly the only person to mention cheetos (especially when there's talk of Britney Spears). All of the internal links are at the top, and her writing is directly beneath those links ~ there's no hunting around for a link here and a link there, forcing anyone to check out the links in the sidebars. It's her site, I like her, and won't stop visiting because of the adverts. I would also feel the same way about Keri's site, if it ever became an issue.

Sara, you've not only judged me, but put words in my mouth & presumed to read my mind. It seems to me you made assumptions, stating what I think (supposedly) and how I feel (supposedly). I don't think that's very courteous. If you think when you say something, I now get the impression that your thought was to insult me when you took aim. And if I were a better person, I would not dignify the accusations with a response, but I feel I must not allow misinterpretation to stand.

1) If you go to my blog & notice the note by my "tip jar" link, you'll see what I mean about it being a joke. ('nough said about that.)

2) Just because I think saying, for example, something like, "I drive a 2004 Cadillac Escalade & I just got another ipod" and then saying "send me money because I just quit my job to pursue my personal interests and I desperately need to feed my children", is rather disingenuous... does NOT mean I myself want to drive an Escalade, that I don't have an ipod, or that I don't like my job.
I also didn't say anyone needed to suffer for money, or that Dooce, or anyone else shouldn't make money off ads, or tip jars or their books or whatever.
I was just debating the argument, being asserted by some here (and elsewhere), that the dooce family was suffering in poverty with no other means of making money, which I believe that's clearly that's not the case.
I don't personally care if they get advertising money, or if people who read that blog send them every spare dime they have. It's their choice. Just don't tell me what my opinions should be on the matter, or who I should give my money to.

3) I would never contact Dooce personally with any negative opinions I have of her, as I believe that would be rude. However, this is not Dooce's blog, and it's up to KeriSmith to decide what comments are here or not.

But as Nina said:
"But if everyone were talking about my life/career choices with such energy, they'd have to peel me off the floor by this point of the discussion. I guess that's just the risk you take by putting yourself out there, which goes back to those personal cost issues."

There's one thing that people seem to be ignoring. I believe one of the reasons Dooce got popular is that she DOES, and has for a long time, "put herself out there".
She has talked about things most people don't talk about to strangers in a public forum. (Rather like a reality television show.)
Things I would NEVER care to put into the public domain, and which is why I would never even bother to try & make money off a personal on-line journal about my life.
She's made the decision to make her life public. The people who've been discussing her site - including myself... It's not like we broke into her house, stole her personal journal from underneath her mattress, and then posted it to the internet and judged her life publicly. Her life is not only part of the public domain, but a commercial part of the public domain, as she's sponsored by advertisements.
"So don’t judge. Just don’t visit." ??
To say someone shouldn't voice an opinion of her publicly, is, in my opinion, tantamount to saying people shouldn't voice opinions about the contestants on "The Amazing Race" or "Big Brother".

Keri --

I see your point about "trusting the medium," however, isn't there the argument that those bloggers who place ads on their sites (myself included) are probably, inadvertently, revealing something about themselves in the process? Furthermore, I think the quantity of the ads (and placement, etc.), reveals more. I'm not sure WHAT -- perhaps, viewed most negatively, they're sell-outs, or maybe they're just curious at how much their blog (and therefore their work in maintaining it) is worth, or, maybe, like Dooce (who, I hear, gets upwards of SEVENTY THOUSAND HITS A DAY), they see a real cash cow on their hands and decides to exploit it. In any event, I guess my point is that ad placement may inadvertently be a small glimpse into the psyche of the author -- in which case, it can't help to be anything but honest, right?

Just one way to look at it,

K.

I ignore the ads.

I loved that there's this open discussion about the broader issues of consumption/advertising, selling/buying. The only thoughts I want to add to the table are:

1. Recently I've taken up watching Rome on HBO and one of the things the town crier did is mention his corporate sponsor/ad: "True Roman Bread for True Romans." I loved it and thought it was hillarious. All the even back then with the benefactor system, artists were always well aware that they had to sing for their supper. Does it affect the creation/product? Of course. But so does many many many other variables, not all of which is money-related - should we go after those now? Ultimately, everything (and everyone) is for sale. If her content is (and continues to be) well-liked enough to make her an income off those ads then kudos for her.

2. On the other hand, I really feel repulsed that value is seen only in terms of money and sell-ability, that it encourages people to only be seen as their demographics and their "about"s instead of their person. It's exhausting also to spend your life wanting. Those ads, admit it or otherwise, make you *want* stuff, stuff that's unnecessary, and the very definition of want is to live in a space of lacking. And I think that that's just too bad. Because it means we've traded our needs for wants and most of the time those actual needs, like love or self-growth or whatever just gets filled with wants and distractions.

I think the beautiful thing is that there isn't a right or wrong answer. As humans, we're able to look at something from different points of views (and there are as many as there are people! but just because someone sees or feels something different, it doesn't make one right or one wrong. Life is about learning. To read other people's points of view is to learn or at least expose ourselves to other points of view.

It's funny because while reading these responses, I found some that felt the same way I did. Some that felt different. And some that were both. It's not about right or wrong, it's about asking the questions and hearing different points of view so that you can decide for yourself your opinion.

I won't state my opinion, just than this has been very interesting to read. Oh, and that I feel that having a link to your book (whether or not you got money from it) is, to me, a way to say "if you like what you're reading here, I have a book." I'd be disappointed if I was a faithful reader of someone's blog and never knew they had a book. We can all make our own decisions on if we want to buy the book.

Just my two cents. This has been very informative!

There are things I like about advertising -- the whole creative/persuasive side. But I hate the idea of being manipulated, even subtley and I know that brings up a contradiction, which I think is the crux of this debate. I try to keep my kids away from ads, because they're just too young and don't have enough filters in place. I read the New York Times online every morning and I couldn't even tell you how many pop-up ads I close every day or what they're about. My point is if I want to read something, I'll get through the ads and I feel fairly unaffected by them -- OK, I do want to see Bee Season now because of a pop-up, but only because I'm familiar with the book, not because of savvy advertising. And if I were someone in the position to accept advertising I'd probably drive myself crazy trying to be socially responsible and would most likely wind up skipping the ads. I don't know about the personal cost issue other than to reiterate that it's a personal cost. I think all of this discussion has become too judgmental. For me, the ability to choose is important and I'm glad I can do that and I'm glad I feel free to comment -- that's the part about about blogs that I don't think can be sullied by too many ads. Thanks for bringing all of this up. And I'm glad Dooce seems like a strong person, though I haven't visited her site in ages. But if everyone were talking about my life/career choices with such energy, they'd have to peel me off the floor by this point of the discussion. I guess that's just the risk you take by putting yourself out there, which goes back to those personal cost issues.

That message was aimed at "Chloe" who just posted.

“I don't see anything wrong with a tip box either. I have one (that's more or less a joke really). Though I myself have found myself rolling my eyes when people who flaunt expensive belongings that I've never been able to afford…. I'm not saying they're wrong to do that, or that I'm making a moral judgement on them. It's a free country. And if they can pull that off, good for them. But don't expect me to donate, and don't expect me to think well of them.”
You just totally made judgments. You first say you don’t see anything wrong with it, then you list a paragraph about what you think is wrong then you say you’re not judging then you say “don’t expect me to think well of them”
Wow.
When you say something, really think about it. To me, it came off as a little bit jealous and angry – you have a tip jar that’s not getting anything and you don’t understand/like that other people who seem to have more than you get more. You’re angry at those that “get stuff.”
I think some people who don’t like dooce’s ads are more pissed that she’s making money at it and she and her husband aren’t “working.” Everyone wants money but those without it hate those who have it if they’re not perceived as “suffering” for it.
I don’t like her site visually and won’t visit but I so don’t have issues with her making money from it. She’s an “artist” like Keri is – writing instead of drawing and communicating different things but she’s an artist. To say one is better because she hasn’t “Sold out” is a crock of shit that is aimed to just make Keri feel better. Everyone has reasons for doing things that others can’t understand because their views and ideas and needs are different.
So don’t judge. Just don’t visit.

I greatly admire you Keri, I'm an artist living and trying to survive in Vancouver BC and read you always, have for the past two years.

Your site was introduced when I was taking a Multimedia course @ UBC to learn how to 'write for the web'. Your site was highly regarded by the class, and the university. Your reach is further than you know. Your book is featured at a locally owned shop here on Granville Island, so nice to see.

I can't say the same for DOOCE at all. I've been reading her and am very disapointed, its as though she's become part of the check out line at the supermarket. I understand that we have to do what we have to do to get by but frankly I'd sooner work at the grocery store for $8.75 Canadian an hour in the deli, and come home to art my heart out. I live a very simple life that I choose because who I am is what I do.

I don't believe what DOOCE is doing is right and like you I don't believe she knows the reach of her influence either.
Only time will show her that.

It's an excellent question, and important, I think, to consider these things.

I hadn't visited Dooce for a long time; I took a boo and I must admit that from a design perspective, it's a bit off-putting. Plus I find some sort of disconnect with the sometimes very sentimental posts that Heather writes about, say, concerning her daughter, and then I am bombarded with ads for movies, etc. But she, like the rest of us, is just trying to earn a living. I can't fault her that. And I would much prefer to work at home rather than work for a jackass boss or a soul-destroying company, too.

It is important to be aware of the excessive amount of advertising in North America, and well, the world. The fact that people are willing to paint tattoos of ads on their heads for money is just mind boggling. But then, anyone who wears designer label clothes is actually paying the company to advertise their product. It's a sad state of affairs, really, because the large corporations really do own a lot of things that we are not even aware of. It would take a lot of energy to be completely 'morally clean' in everything that we buy, I think. But that shouldn't stop us from making an effort to be more aware.

There are no easy answers to this question. One has to do what is right for oneself.

I think there's also a big difference between 'promoting' (mentioning) your own work, like a book, or your art, on your personal blog, as opposed to having unrelated companies advertised on your blog.
I also think there's a difference between when you promote a certain product because you're paid for it, and say... when I have actually devoted blog posts to the Lyric Consort, (a local singing group), who I love their music, that I happened to do some photography for... Like I may have linked to info about their CD, on which the inside & back cover includes my photography... I didn't link it necessarily to persuade someone to buy the CD. I get no money for mentioning it. I mentioned it because I wanted to share with others something *I* did that I was happy with (my photos).
I'm suspecting that you Keri, post a link to your book for similar reasons, even though you aren't making money if someone buys it now.

I don't see anything wrong with a tip box either. I have one (that's more or less a joke really).
Though I myself have found myself rolling my eyes when people who flaunt expensive belongings that I've never been able to afford, and live in a house way bigger & in a better neighborhood, than any I've ever lived in, with a better job than I can get myself, start begging for donations on their blog from their readers (many who are probably in the same boat with me), because they've quit their job to devote more time to their personal pursuits...
I'm not saying they're wrong to do that, or that I'm making a moral judgement on them. It's a free country. And if they can pull that off, good for them. But don't expect me to donate, and don't expect me to think well of them.

I must also state I don't feel any more sympathy towards someone with children, than for someone without. Having children is a choice. And some parents have to work jobs they hate to feed their children more than rice. And some people want children, but choose not to have children because they can't afford a child... So I have a certain perspective on that which colours my opinions on the matter.

Furthermore, we all judge people every day. We have to. Otherwise, I would be hanging out with criminals, or just people who are bad for me, or bad to me. Not all negative opinions of other people are unhealthy. It's the way you express them that could get dicey... Say, for instance, telling someone what they ought to think or feel, instead of just stating your own opinion on a matter, not in their face.

So I'm with selenium7 to a degree. It all definitely depends on context.

This discussion has helped me get a better sense of my thoughts on the matter, so thanks to everyone.

Many have already stated here most of the points I would make. I will only add that Dooce (whom I wouldn't miss an entry from) is primarily a writer, and of a certain ilk at that. Keri is primarily an artist, and has more of a young idealist personality in general (not a critique, it's lovely). They both could be the same age, that isn't the point, it's that they have entirely different sensibilities. Dooce strikes me as more of the tough, cool girls in school, hard drinking, raucous, less sensitive, not that she doesn't have profound depth of feeling about her love and life. And Keri seems more of an aesthete, one who reads poetry and notices gentle aspects of nature, not that she doesn't get down and boogie clearly, just in a different way.

So the advertising issue is to me is largely about taste and style rather than just selling out in a gross way. As a visual artist, Keri is naturally going to be offended by the ugly, affronting glare of Dooce's current site and then observe her inner reaction as a outer philosophical point because that's her method of addressing life right now.

Not that my opinion matters to anyone but me but I personally didn't like the idea of Jon working on the Heather's site for total income not because of the ads but because of my own discomfort with Jon not being the "main provider" as a man in the family. I think that can, under most circumstances, weaken the dynamic of respect a woman feels. That was my first thought when I read about their plan, then when I considered it further, as it related to their specific personalities, I thought that if any couple could make that work it would be them. Heather is so strong and Jon so loving, plus, having Jon at home seems to really help Heather and Leta so seems radically essential.

Their site is, I think uglier than it has to be, but that may be a result a limited design sense.

Two important things: one, there are many better ways to MAKE MONEY from blogs rather than ads. and two, there are now much better ways of getting paid for writing books than a publishing deal... Discuss...

yup, i really understand. it is a toss up. who is to say what i would do if i had an unemployed husband and felt so much more safe with him at home, calm, nice , good feelings. but i have to admit...i hate her new ads, they are really distracting! i have a much harder time reading her great writing. i love heather's writing style, so i guess i'll take the ads, as long as i get to read her words. it is so much more damned difficult to read through the ads on both sides! i hate it! i love your blog, too. it is delicate, and respectful, and gentle. i am an art therapist, and it really resonates with me. i wish you luck.

I have just found your site through hulaseventy and I appreciate your thoughts on advertising and art. I have a job currently promoting a dance company and I struggle with what that means. My husband kids me that I'm selling the un-sellable anyhow, since it's a contemporary dance company! But I go to marketing workshops...for the arts...it's all a very strange mix that feels contradictory, because art comes from such a real, personal place that advertising is so far from, as you said. But we did decide to start a blog for the dancers in a creative period they have that's upcoming. I think it's truly interesting and hope that it doesn't just come off as lame marketing ploy. No ads on it anyhow! (I won't put it here so that this doesn't appear to be a spam comment. But of course I will if anyone's curious--haha.)I have to try to pitch to fashion magazines and social pages, and it's a stretch. Is it even worth doing? Another odd thing recently in Atlanta there is a big promotional weekend for the arts as part of "branding" the city as "cultural", and they decided to give away info on all the arts companies in town...at a football game! Just weird to me. It all comes back to a debate I love to have over how much the audience should be considered when you're making art. Age old aestheic issue that it is. I still haven't come to any sort of conclusion on the question!

According to some future trend watchers the ads of tomorrow will be mood sensing, meaning the minute you walk by a billboard it displays
an appropirate advertisment just for you. Don´t ask me about the technique, it makes me shudder to think about, though I fear personalised ad targeting definately sounds unavoidable. One could say, how little of an impact does it than make to resist the industry? Why not use the opportunity and make money to do things with it you really care about?

You so rightly ask for the greater cost of it. I know whenever I ask myself that question it comes with this tremendous worry that even if I stick to my beliefs it is equally pointless, I will just be overrun by the stream and drown. So to whom is it coming, the greater cost? Will the greater cost be mine and I missed my chance when things were still available to me? (Frankly, I have just printed out Hugh McLeods card of "I just want to be rich so I can tell people to fuck off") Or is that the voice of fear, mischievously ignited by the exact center of the system, to lure me to give in and float along?

i mistyped my email address.
My original comment was taken as angry when it was not meant to be. My point is simply that to lose respect or to judge someone because of their personal choices is generally not a healthy or positive position. Debating the pros and cons of choices and discussing your thoughts on those choices makes for a great healthy debate, but things turn ugly when you take your views and then judge the person or persons with opposing views.

note to commenters:
I am open to criticism and disagreement with my opinions but I choose not to interact with angry comments with fake email addresses. I would like to keep this discussion civil.

I had no idea this would cause such a backlash. I only wish to examine my own feelings about the subject and have a public discussion to help with that. I don't think there is anything wrong with expressing my feelings on a subject.

Kristen:
I agree with you on the product placement front. So I ask all of you, how do we trust that ANY blog is not being paid for a product that they link to, (when I have already told you that companies have offered to pay me to mention their product)? If I see a blog with ads, I know they are willing to take money from these companies. The more ads that appear on blogs the less we will all trust in honesty of the medium as a whole.

hmm...this is an interesting post. i enjoy thinking about these topics and am glad that so many people are discussing it back and forth.

first i must say that i am happy that your site doesn't have ads and i would hope that it would stay that way.

the only way the world has even a chance of combating the insane and endless amounts of advertising, at least in Canada, is to stop allowing corporations to use advertising costs as tax dedeuctible expenses. a really good book that discussing a lot of these issues is the rebel sell.

my current pet peeve is product placement. because of the mute button and things like tivo, you can't watch a t.v. show now that doesn't have blatant product placement or while you are watching a show a little ad for another show on that network pops up. i'm sure more and more of these things will happen even in the world of blogging. i would much rather have an ad in my face than corporations believe i am stupid enough not to realize that i am being advertised to with their constant product placement.

hmmmm...
i hadn't really given this much thought
since i don't have many advertisers
banging down my door to get on my blog
heh heh...
i haven't even had to use word verification
cause i don't even get
blog spam...
heh.
whats up with that?
anyhow...
what i wanted to say
is that perhaps because i live in a small-town
off the map kinda place
i don't feel the same sting of
the advertising that you do...
i will admit that dooce's site is not
overly attractive to look at right now
but its not just the ads...
its just not my style anymore...
i know the ads are there
but i don't have a clue what any of them are for..
i don't look at them...

anonymous, I'm with you -- Dooce's ads don't bother me. Frankly, I suspect there's a little person in all of us bloggers that is quite jealous that she can make a living by blogging. But perhaps I'm wrong.

Keri -- you say you lose respect for someone who puts ads on their site -- and I can respect that. I struggled with whether to put ads on mine. I finally did, in hopefully as inobtrusive a manner as possible. For me, the reason I did it wasn't because I needed the money (frankly, the amount of money I'm making each month wouldn't so much as get me a cup of coffee in a cheap diner). I did it because I want to become a full-time writer, and earn money from my words. The ads are just a tiny little self-affirmation. As I start on this process, and am struggling to find publishers, and other organizations to pay me for my work, the ads remind me that everyone starts somewhere -- and one day, when I am fully making a living with my words, I can joke that I started out by earning pennies-per-month with ads on my site.

Personally, I admire the fact that Heather was able to be there for her husband, who was apparently in a soulless job he felt he needed to leave. I respect the fact that she's talented enough that her site can support her family of three. The ads don't reduce the quality of her writing, or the value of what she has to say. I think we should cut her some slack.

Small ads are on almost every blog now, but with Dooce, her blog is more of an ad page than a blog now.

Secondly, something I just thought of, but saying that the ads are supporting her family almost guilts people into clicking when they otherwise wouldn't. I don't know her whole situation since I am not a visitor of her blog, but it does seem like making a living from ads is taking a big risk since there is a child to support. With Google you have to earn $100 before you can even get paid! Is her husband disabled now? Is that why he doesn't have a job anymore?

It is sad to see blogging turn into just another venue for selling, but we do all need money to live. I'm sure that all of us at some point have thought it would be cool to make a little extra from something we like doing (blogging). However, I think that going overboard with ads will have the oppisite effect for her blog.

I'd like to clarify something to be fair. I DO NOT make any money from my book sales. This may surprise many of you. I was paid an advance against royaties at the beginning (which was not enough to live on as I don't have a big name). My publisher pays royalties on wholesale not the retail cost. For those of you who care that means it takes a long time (several years) to pay the advance back to the publisher. This is not a good deal, I am aware of that, but it is what I signed many years ago. I have never recieved a royalty from any of my books. I hope this will change in the future because it is nearly impossible to make a living as an author unless you are on the bestseller list. (I hear the same is true of the music industry).

"Advertising" my book on my website brings me NO money, it all goes to the publisher. Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

Sometimes the moral high road just plain sucks..."you're a hold out, so I'm a hold out too" ...a misquote from an old Jackson Browne song.

i think i must be the only one who doesn't mind heather's ads. i remember when she first got them, my roommate asked me how she actually makes money from them, and i told her that when people click on them, she gets a fraction of a penny. so together, we decided to click on them all of the time to help her out.

i think it's great that those ads generate enough income for her and her family to live a comfortable life.

and i have a strong enough sense of myself, and of willpower, not to go out and buy doritos or whatever, or even think twice about any of it.

it may be aesthetically unpleasant, but it doesn't ruin my day, or my life. i have too many other things weighing on me. i can't waste any energy thinking about adverts, i can't move to the countryside to avoid them. i just choose to ignore them.

in fact, i think that your "buy my book" in the corner there is more obvious and jarring than those ads, a little mendicant calling out to your readers for spare change.

Hello Keri

Food for thought indeed. I've been experimenting with Google ads on my site for a little while and am unsure that I'm keeping them. Interestingly when I was thinking about trying them I found myself wondering what other bloggers who I read and respect would do (you included). I now at least have your answer.

Should they stay or should they go? I suspect my decision will be more of a pragmatic one than a political one - do they bring in enough of an income to offset the effect of them being there on how people view me.

I feel very sad that having them there would mean I would lose some of your respect for me (assuming you have some in the first place!). However I am trying very hard to increase what meagre income I have at the moment and this is one avenue I'm going to try.

Very best wishes from Wales

Michael

keri,
i don't know if you'll still be reading comments once they get past 40, but i wanted to say i appreciate the nature of your concern. it's really not just an issue of advertising or money in my opinion, but more about living an authentic life in a culture that is often constructed out of artifice more than anything else. everything is commodified and sold back to us and after awhile, it's easy to forget what it means to simply be human.

this recent post from a friend comes to mind:
http://onehouse.blogs.com/onehouse/2005/10/i_enjoyed_rerea.html

i think you would enjoy the whole thing, but here's the part that sticks with me--

"So Havel and other dissidents began to ask, "How can we live the truth in a culture based on a fundamental lie, especially since the lie is in our heads? How can we begin to live into the truth? We desire so much more than just things. We want something to hope in, a reason to believe."

your blog does that for me--gives me a spark of hope and much needed encouragement as an artist. i hope knowing that i'm not the only one gives you the inspiration you need to follow your true north, and in turn receive everything you need--with or without ads on this site.

peace,
jenlemen

I thought Velvet Brick said it best. There is something about your site-on every level-that is genuinely peaceful, and authentic-a cyberresort of sorts. I am awed by the level of questioning and integrity that you are committed to having as the foundation of your life. (I wouldn't feel less so if you did choose to have an ad or two or three, but the fact that you have this very dialogue at all with yourself is very inspiring and important.) While I hope your site doesn't go the route of Dooce's, because I do find all the ads annoying and distracting and just plain ugly aesthetically, in the end, I would still keep coming back to your site because its your challenging and beautiful entries that are what I come for.

Every blog has its own tone, its own color. The advertising on Dooce seems perfectly suited to the style she has constructed. She wants to shock, she wants to be off-putting. Your response calls attention to another way she's able to achieve this reaction from her readers. Look at her choice as an extension of her style.

Her entries have included little product placements for quite some time -- doritos, cheetos, and more. I was surprised not to see a dorito bag wiggling in the corner. Would it matter? I don't think so. It's probably coming soon.

. . . I recently put up amazon.com links on my site and it was after agonizing around doing some form of it for months. What I finally got to was this: it's fine to be straightforward and ask for something, and in this case it was for people to respond if they felt to, and that the blending of money and art is fine. All great artists have had to do commissions, pieces that they may not neccessarily have felt to do if they didn't need the money. I'm not looking to buy prada, simply to pay my rent, buy spelt bread, kitty vitamins. And the truth is that my blog isn't read enough for the ads to really make much of a difference so I may take them down, and i have felt levels of embarressment around it. But for now I leave them up because my blog isn't one of those journal/venting/chatting places, but a forum where I put my art up for others to see. I give it away for free, and also say: if you'd like to contribute, lovely. And if people don't, no worries. Why does doing something "for free" make it better? more pure? And I say this even as I feel as you do that the advertizing throws something quiet and sweet inside of me into a spasm . . . glad you did this post . . . it is a big shift in our blog world isn't it . . . .

Hmmmm.....a blog seems to me to be a public forum. It is put out there for consumption and it has space for comments (such as this). A prior comment was correct - you do advertise your book. Personally, I do not read the "advertisements," so they don't have much effect on me. I like the idea of "free money," which it essentially is. However, I have to say - "What about working for a living?????" Yeah, yeah, you're an 'artist' - what about those who need to work to pay the mortage, feed the kids, pay the taxes (and keep the government afloat)?????? For those of us who are working-stiffs, I have to say "GET A JOB!!!" There are several valid sides here - do they REALLY matter? Probably not.......

Keri,
I am glad you are giving so much thought to this subject. While everyone has to make their own decisions, most people really don't think them out. Whatever your choice now and in the future, you are looking at it from all sides, and I admire you for that (and for many other things). Keep up the good work.

Not going to check out the site you've mentioned. I disagree with the profesional quality ads on blogs...but I had a hard time reading your post knowing that you have your book in the upper right hand corner and you are discussing your feelings about ads. Pot calling the kettle black?
Your book on your blog is you and it's who you are and what you do...it's not a glaring ad...more like a subliminal one. I like seeing your published stuff here very much. So when is an ad not an ad? Is that the bigger question?

This seems to be something of a 'hot topic' in all the blogs I peruse. The first time it came up I took a visit to Dooce's website for the first time, out of sheer curiosity as to what is so great about her writing.

I can honestly say that as a first time visitor, I was severely 'turned off' by the glaring adverts. I closed the screen without reading any entries - yes, I scrolled to the bottom to see if anything jumped out at me and said "read me!", but it didn't - I was too distracted by the "buy me!" shouts from the sidebar.

My point being that whether rightly or wrongly Dooce has adverts, and I think her visitor numbers (at the very least, new visitor numbers) will suffer. She might be paying her mortgage with the profits now, but will she be able to in a year?

I applaud your decision Keri; as someone said earlier, we come here for the "silence", not to be sold things we dont need/want!

I reckon you can afford this. Since when it comes down to it, you are responsible for you, and your husband. As welk as your husband is repsponsible for himself, and for you.

You have no children. If money get tight. You can move, you can eat rise for month.

Dooce et family has a child. You dont' want to feed child rice for month cause you have no money. Nor do you want to uproot it if you need to move to cheaper accomodation.

I think there are moral stances to take when you are only one or two people. And none of them are totaly dependant on the other.

Love your writings. regards Maria

dooce has had ads on her site for a while now. it is only in the last week that they increased in volume and glare.

i think most of why people are upset about this is because she started out without ads and now has ads. has anyone complained because gawker or wonkette or other corporate-y blogs have ads?

while dooce has done a lot of graphic work, i believe, i don't think she considers her site an "artist's blog" as keri's is. it appears that most of dooce's ads are also "push" too, and she is not choosing what shows up. it would be pretty clear if she started pimping an advertiser as well. i think she's the kind of person who would stand on the top of her house and announce any advert tie-ins.

yeah, it sucks that ads are in the bathroom stall and on your grocery cart, but what can we do about it? what do any of us do? anyone ever write to pepsi and say, stop advertising? or ask the building management company to remove the TV in the elevator? they would laugh in your face if you did. but I doubt many of us have even bothered to ask in the first place.

is the end of the world that dooce has ads? nope. is it annoying to read around them? yup. but if her readership drops, then she'll have to either increase the ads or reduce the ads and try to lure people back. or make john get another job.

the purist argument would be that keri shouldn't even mention that she has stuff for sale on her blog, but heck, she has to eat, too, and the blog is an extension of her work, in a way, so i'm not anti-promo for artists.

there is no easy answer. the ads are not going to go away. everyone is going to have their heated two cents, but the bottom line is that heather will continue to make the decisions she needs to for her family.

and hey, which is better, having ads or hitting up the blogsphere for cold hard cash ala kottke.org? is he just begging or is it more honorable because we don't have to see it every time we go to his site?

i think we just like things to be pretty.

Yeah, there's definitely a big difference between linking and paid ads. They're two completely different animals.

Not that I'm necessarily against advertising altogether.

But I wouldn't advertise something on my site that I didn't at least approve, if not advocate. Which makes it hard to use something like Google Ads, because you have to trust them about what you're advertising.
And billboards do bother me, as does the feeling of being overwhelmed by ads somewhere... though it doesn't happen often, because I seem to naturally avoid it... I guess it's why I don't watch much tv... I do watch television shows, but I watch them when they come on dvd.

But I did check out that dooce site, which I do not read myself. (just not my bag) And her site IS very busy with the ads. There really isn't an aesthetic site design at all, so I understand that criticism.
Indeed, I think the design is specfically drawing more attention to the ads, visually, than the content. A lot moreso than a lot of newspaper web sites, frankly.
Indeed, I think if you put the very same 2 columns of ads on MY little blog, it wouldn't even seem as overwhelming as it does on hers for some reason.
But I guess it has to be that way in order to make enough money from the ads to support a family of three.

And that's I guess the problem people have with it too. It's not like she's a single parent. And it's not like she's ever given the impression they've ever experienced any real poverty (she seems to have a lot of nice things a lot of people can't afford).

It could be that her previous site design was part of the attraction & allure of her web site, I don't know. If that's the case, overwhelming ads won't help in the long run, I suppose. But if her writing is so compelling to her readers, then I guess the site design, and her credibility as far as towing an advertiser's line, won't matter to her readers.

At any rate, I don't think advertising is the problem altogether. I think, like anything else, it has to do with quality, quantity, and context.

re Gmail: I don't have a Gmail account... But that does sound creepy - to have the ads specified to what you're writing in a personal letter... I'm trying to picture myself, back in the 80s & 90s, at my desk with my pretty stationery, writing to my pen-pals all over the world, and having ads pop up on my wooden desk based on what I'm writing in my personal letters. Eeek.

Here's what I like about your site, Keri.

It's peaceful...
It's relaxing...

My mind is able to unwind...drift...think...rest...

I am able to read, pause, reflect, reread, pause some more, reflect some more...

I can breathe on your site

I can hear my thoughts at your site...

Your site is calming....

Thank you Keri, for not giving in to advertising...

Kel:
I'm not sure your argument works. When you link to my site you do not make any profit. What I am talking about here is a paid advertisement. The differentiation is important because by linking you are saying "I genuinely like this site". I would refer to it more as a personal recommendation, you are not attempting to promote my site, merely share something you are interested in.

Does that mean we should delete any sidebar links we have to your site - because that would mean we are 'advertising' you

I'm not saying that to be a smart alec, but to try and give an example that shows it's not that easy to be black and white on this sort of thing

I actually agree with a lot of what you have posted here :)

The problem with so much advertising is it is awful art. No, really, it is awful. It's awful art. There was a time I would not have thought any art awful, art is what it is, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So what I mean when I say awful is it perfect. And because it is so perfect with it's purpose (to sell) and perfect in it's appearance (always the no-flaw models and 1-2 puch symbols) it becomes awful.
Selling is not the problem, neither is advertising. It's the art. And it's not the advertising artists' fault. It's the clients' criteria and the $-signs in their eyes that blind them to the beauty of imperfection.
I'm with the person who mentioned that they didn't even notice the ads on dooce. She can have them there all she wants, they're like the jacket on a book.

Thank You.

I love the chance to debate, thanks. Life is full of such huge contradictions on the one hand I cant stand advertising and I have been heard to say it it visual pollution and there should be a tax/fine against it just as there is with noise pollution. I feel as if there is no space which is sacred anymore.

And yet we are all a party to promoting advertising everyday in the papers we read, the blogs we read the clothing we buy. Some advertising is charity based and is vital to raise funds. Often our everyday lives are inextricably interwined with advertising who are we to say which advertising is more 'correct'...to make a living from. Raisng a child certainly makes the imperative to make money all the more urgent I think its a harsh world out there for people who want to make a living from home with their kids.

I am inclined to agree with your point of view. I don't like to see ads on sites like blogs, but I can understand why people put a few on. We all need money, but we each have an idea of how we are willing to get that money too.

I don't visit Dooce, but you aren't the only person talking about her recent ads. I clicked today to see what was going on, and I have to say she really has too many. I can't see how that is supporting her family because having so many ads is pretty off putting. I know that I wouldn't click on them just out of being annoyed by it. It's like the blog is an after thought to the money side. I have a feeling she is going to lose a lot of visitors because of this.

There really isn't a clear answer to the issue though. I guess we all just do the best we can, and since we all have different standards and view points, it is nice that we can choose which sites we visit and which we don't.

maybe I was unclear, I need the money too (sometimes it is a struggle to pay the rent). There are a lot of things I could do, but not all of them are good.

As and artist and an individual I think it is important to stand behind the things we put out into the world. I don't think a blog should be immune from this. Are we not to be held accountable for that which we represent? How am I to trust a magazine that tells me to love myself and my body as I am when there is an ad for botox on the next page? There is an obvious disconnect.

As I walked home tonight my eyes drifted to some birds flying overhead, and I became mezmerized by the motion. They would catch an air pocket and float on it for some time. I wondered if at some point they too will have little ads attached to their legs floating behind them. Where will it stop? When the bathroom ads were first introduced people were outraged and spoke out, but over time they have become commonplace, accepted.

I am equally torn. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue.

re: dooce.
I have to say that the advertising on her site is totally overboard. I was shocked when I first saw it. Her writing is great, but the design of the site has suffered with all the adverts.

BUT she gets thousands of hits every day. Why not parlay that into an income? What would I do if I had a site that was as popular?

There's a well-known blogger named James Lileks (http://www.lileks.com) who is a newspaper columnist. His blog ramblings and various collections lead to several cool book deals. And it's worth noting his site is ad-free except for the one that's advertising his own book. :)
Is it naive to wonder why Dooce isn't taking that route?

To the person who wrote:
"The idea that adverts, whether in print, film or other, have this uncontrolable ability to form our minds is a grossly exaggerated phenomenon."

I don't think it's grossly exaggerated at all. There is something to worry about. Especially as it pertains to children. (Interesting article here: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/marketing/marketers_target_kids.cfm)

The bottom line is that advertising would not exist if it didn't work.

I like your site, I like Dooce's. I am not shocked by her I choice to have ads, she needs the money. I like that you, Keri will not have ads. There is this great new community of people who read these blogs, create these blogs. This maybe should be looked at in the more long term view. We will hopefully evolve away from this need to advertise to every man, woman and child on planet Earth. Until then we live in a world with this as our reality, we do our lives, we think and grow and hopefully, learn.

Keri,

Great topic.

I too have been struggling with the new dooce design. Part of me feels like since I've been stopping by her site for so many years I shouldn't mind the new ads. I think what has bothered me the most is that I can't choose if I want to see them, like you said. I also think the new layout has made me feel like each time I visit the blog is second to the ads.... this is what gets me the most. I am all over the place on this issue but think it's great to see and read others feel the same way.
Jenn

I agree that the bombardment of advertising these days has become a kind of psychological junk food and that in general, society has become, if not addicted to it, then certainly blase about it. I couldn't continue to watch tv these days without the benefit of the mute button on the remote. I choose to watch what interests me and mute all the advertising. I just wish there was some way of programing my tv to 'always' mute advertising. What worries me is that western society is now so wrapped up in consumerism that they can't see beyond their own material needs and can't/don't or won't see that the planet is dying and people everywhere are suffering around them. Humanity - western humanity - needs to reconnect. Fast.

Though at times it would be easier , life is never black and white.
It is hard to say -- I think there are people who can walk that tight rope , and at times look as if they are slipping over the edge when it comes to what is considered "selling out" - but in someways they are really actually using the power of that system to effect some kind of real change in their life and maybe even everyone else's.

Think about musical artists that if they had never "sold out" by signing to a major label, alot of us would have never heard their really powerful messages ---(Bob Dylan---for example)

I think there is something really powerful about a child who has the wonderful oppurtunity to have both parents at home and happy.(this being the case now for Dooce's child)

I go back and forth... I see both sides- maybe there is no general right or wrong- maybe it is just one choice at a time. But I think just the discussion itself is so awesome. Thanks Keri!

I really feel like this lately,I go to Australias equivalent of central park nearly every weekend just for sanctuary - to get away from shopping malls and the like.This is an eden of people reading,having picnics,dogs running,horses and children climbing branches etc.
Unfortunately last weekend came an entire fleet of loud blue promotional nokia cars
circling the park for hours and a sales team holding brochures & taking sign ups at the entrance,it was so disturbing.

Keri, a very thoughtful entry...I am most concerned with the excellent question, "what effect does tuning out have on me/my life". I love good design and great television writing, I realize everyone needs to feed themselves, and I do choose to "tune out", like yourself. But I get so angry at the lack of choice. I don't want to struggle with noise and jingles from t.v. on the streetcar when I get to sit for a few minutes with a book, I don't want to walk with my head down in Dundas square, elevators, even in the bloody toilet.
And though it may seem all in vain, these lefty cries of conspiracy theory/anti-corporate struggle, it is SO SO important, just to talk about it, just to ask these very questions, especially as artists.
A society of people conditioned to tune out their own environment, is a consequence that is deeply numbing. I still have a wonderful art-filled book-filled life, but I do tune out, and I have become so good at it, it frightens me.
Thank you for your thoughts.

I've resisted putting ads on my site, mostly because I don't like the look and don't (yet) need them.

Still, I think the problem with advertising is not so much that it exists but so much of it is useless to you (and most people who see it). The theoretical promise of something like Google's AdSense is that the ads will be relevant to the text and thus more useful (for advertisers and advertisees alike).

Of course that hasn't quite worked out. But there are times when I _do_ want to know that some product exists. There are times when I _do_ want to know about an upcoming sale. Most of the time I don't. In theory, if I'm reading a very topical blog, I'd be interested in products relevant to that topic (in my case, food/wine products or new technologies).

This is kind of rambling, but I guess my point is that I'm not opposed to advertising as long as it's something I actually care about. Virtually all the time, it isn't.

Hey Keri,
We are all entitled to our opinions and we have an obligation to make sure we take care of ourselves. I am bombarded with ads. I know they have influence on my life and yet I don’t let advertisers control my life. I am aware that there are about 5 major conglomerates with a monopoly on what gets advertised and what is seen in the media.
We all make choices in many cases about what we want to allow into our personal spaces to the extent that we can. I watch TV. I watch commercials and I am entertained, I am annoyed, I make fun of them and I marvel at the art form that comes forth via advertising. I flip through magazines and I cut up advertisements and make collages out of them. I collect free postcards at tower records and I read the ideas on the side of my Starbucks cup. Yes, I am a media queen. And yet that is my choice. I ‘d prefer to stand in the middle of Union Square in San Francisco than in the woods. It’s simply my preference. What you stated were your opinions and reasons why you choose not to partake in advertising, how it effects you, and how you prefer to live. I see nothing wrong with that. Good for you.
Now I will go back to my magazine before Oprah comes on.
I think you are great.
I just don’t see it as something to be taken all that seriously. I know who I am and I will still decide to make my own choices no matter how many commercials come across the TV screen or how many billboards are posted.

I totally understand your point. I ride public transportation in L.A. and cringed when I read that the new Orange Line buses (in the Valley) have TV screens in them - riding a bus is painful enough without having to watch commercials at the same time!

I have been reading Dooce's site for a while. First it was really hilarious, then she became pregnant and I thought: oh no, not another mommy blog. But she was able to conduct it well, she is a great writer.

But with the ads.. she really went too far. I think. For me she has lost credibility. Wether you want it or not, you become a supplier, you have to please your customers (the advertisers) if you don't want to lose money.

I don't think that blogs were intended for this.
If you are truly an artist you will have these dilemmas, you will have to make the though choices and if you are REALLY an artist you won't compromise your art for the sake of money.

It gives me the creeps when I'm in gmail and I'm writing to a friend about my travelling and my passport and how many visas I have and all the ads displayed on the right side go: "Obtain a Visa" "Passport Photos."

It's so invasive.

I agree, Keri.

thank you for these comments.

AW:
yes they do influence. that we agree on. I believe it is my role as an artist to question these things. How much do these ads influence us? Is the influence positive or negative? Do they seep into our subconscious whether we like it or not? Do they impact how we view the world? Do they impact children's ability to think for themselves? I don't know for sure. Can you say for sure that they don't? I don't think anyone can at this point. I ask you what proof do you have that it is "grossly exaggerated?"

But I wish to look at these things. It is widely know that television programming is paid for by advertisers, how much does that impact the content? Quite a bit actually, according to this article. But then there are no shortage of articles telling us why advertising is bad. I'm sure you've seen it all.

Admittedly this is a huge subject to tackle. And I'm not sure this forum will impact it on a large or even small scale. But it is my job to ask 'what is going into my psyche?' and do I want that there? And as one commenter wrote, what impact does this constant 'tuning out' of information have on me? On the world?

I am mainly opposed to the fact that I do not have a choice whether or not I am exposed to it.

Having just had a long talk with someone about the materialistic nature of Christmas and her disagreement of my opinion that it has gotten out of control, this seems applicable to my life today.

I do believe advertising has become this force lately that is overwhelming. I just took a trip back east and was advertised to the entire way, whether it be the handi-wipe they give me with my lunch advertising some eye product, or the many signs and billboards all over the streets and airports. Even my kids Halloween candy was affected, tiny Nascar chocolates with advertisements on each car. I know it affects me, even if I try to ignore it. (I don't watch tv commercials or read magazines.) I can't tell you how many times I have wanted to scream when I can't get a pop-up to go away and I'm trying to read a site. So irritating.

Another example would be my kids who have never watched Spiderman or Batman yet know exactly who each of these characters are based on advertising. If I go to buy my kids' clothing, they of course want to know who these characters all over the clothing are. Personally, I'm tired of it in my face all the time. I still read Dooce, because I understand her situation, and I would still read your site if you had an ad or two. I draw the line at pop-ups, though.

Good thoughts.

Keri, you surely participate in the world of advertising yourself - the blurb on the back of your book, each illustration that you sign or which carries your name, the folios that you send out to prospective employers. I guess I'm just one of those people who's never understood why people make such a fuss about advertising. I just ignore it for the most part, and get on with life.

The idea that adverts, whether in print, film or other, have this uncontrolable ability to form our minds is a grossly exaggerated phenomenon. They influence, indeed. That's the point. In a free country, that's a right. But to suggest that advertising is a mind-numbing force, impossible to avoid, only sheds light on how unoccupied people are leaving their minds. Fill yourself with books, art, great film and wonderful people and the ways of a market economy fall by the wayside, only to appear as mere conveniences here and there.

As well, exposure to commerical advertising is highly personal. While you may be annoyed by the television, in its entirety, some people are, in fact, able to enjoy programs and still keep their mind in good shape. We should be able to read a magazine and understand that people are free (and lucky) to be able to be successful by inventing, innovating and creating products. With billions of people in a country, advertsiing is how you get the word out. Manipulative tactics are often part of the package but it's your job to sort through it or not pay attention.

But to cricize corporate advertising as though it's a poisonous force, taking over an innocent world is exaggerated and ill-informed.

Keri, I've been enjoying your site for a couple of years. I understand your qualms, but don't think I would mind a couple of discreetly-placed ads here, if it helped you financially and freed you up to do other things. I can just ignore the ads.

Dooce recently redesigned her site to have two thick columns of ads running down each side. Yes, her husband recently quit his job, and yes, she should be earning money with her writing. But when the ads physically take over the page, it is alienating. She admits she has received a lot of flak over this.

very though provoking post. I don't know where I net out on it, (as I work for an ad agency) but I do believe that adding ads to your blog changes the nature of the site. It goes from being a blog to being a site. Whether people notice the particular advertisers themselves isn't important- what they notice is that advertising is on the site and it changes it fundamentally. This is a back of the brain switch that may not live in the conscious level, but it still exists.

i have been thinking about this lately too.
i enjoyed reading your post, and like la vie en rose i can't tell you one single ad on dooce's site. but that doesn't make it ok. in fact, it sort of scares me that i have become so immune to such pungent advertising. if we all are shutting it out then what's the next step going to be for the huge corporations? how are they going to get our attention next?

i do know that my mom always told me-do what makes your heart happy and the money will come. for now it's what dooce has to do. and i believe as an imaginary internet friend it's my job to pat her on the back and support her.

the sad part isn't that there are ads on her site, but that a talented woman writer has no other options to feed her family with.

it's a hard question, one that i'm not sure has an answer...

you have some really good points. and so does dooce. honestly, when dooce started having advertisments on her sight i never thought "how will this effect me." and really i still don't. i read her daily but don't think i could tell you what one of the ads on her sight is. i just haven't really paid attention to them. what i do want is for bloggers to keep telling their truth, keep expressing, keep sharing their journey. i love the inspiration and breath of fresh air that offers to readers.

it is true that commerce & advertising have become so pervasive that a decision to avoid them as much as possible means hard work. following an interview with children's entertainer Raffi recently i came across this (U.S.) site: http://www.commercialalert.org/

i am inspired by people like you, keri, to show my (2, soon-to-be 3) kids the importance of creating in our lives-- i think it comes down to the power we have as individuals & the rights we have to be considered as such. and the capacity to understand how others may be different. i think advertising glosses over difference and renders us all... just consumers.

thanks for such a (long, and thoughtful) post

As an illustrator myself, I must applaud your decision. I know how VERY difficult it is to turn away money in a field where one is always walking a financial tightrope. I've made similar decisions in my life such as not watching tv, but advertising has crept into everything such as bathroom stalls, the backs of atm receipts and sadly- my county buses have installed blaring advertising on tv's. It was always such a great place to have time with a book. But back to what I wanted to say-thank you for saying no!

You should read this one Young Adult book that I just finished. It addresses a lot of these issues through fiction and is called Feed by M.T. Anderson. Very intriguing, I must say.