I'd like to steer this argument away from the personal and into a general discussion about blogs and advertising. I did not use the site previously mentioned as a way to judge or attack in any way, I used it because it is the most obvious example of what we are talking about and seems to have set a precident given it's popularity.
So I've learned that this is an extremely personal subject, we all have strong opinions based on our own experiences. What's right for me may NOT be right for you. I disagree that ads and specifically blog ads do not affect our society in a negative way (and that if we "tune them out" they will not affect us.) But this is *my* opinion, I am not saying you must share that opinion.
Here are more of the reasons *I* have a problem with blog ads, (and yes, I have many of my own contridictions and hypocrises wrapped up in this, given that I am a commercial illustrator). I certainly have worked for some questionable corporations. I will say that over time I have become a LOT more discerning about work that I take on, that has evolved as the confidence has grown over the years. I am learning as I go, and there are indeed many grey areas. I actually took advertising in art school and enjoyed it quite a bit. One of my heros is Tibor Kahlman, a designer who created many intelligent ads in his lifetime, who believed that advertising should not be seperate from the human experience. A contridiction, yes. I am human after all. All of this discussion is helping me to articulate what I believe in...
Many bloggers say they will not let the ads affect the editorial content. I question this statement. How long will this last? What if Apple Computers offers someone $10,000 to have an ad on their site? Are you really going to say anything negative about Apple in your ramblings? I doubt it. So now the honesty of the writing is affected. The more ads that appear on blogs the less we will all trust in honesty of the medium as a whole.
The byproduct of this is that blogging medium is now (as with many/most others forms of media in our culture, magazines, news, film, etc.) is now *influenced/controlled* by large corporations. If you don't know why this is a problem I highly recommend the film "the corporation", which explains in a succinct way why most large corporations have no accountablity, and are only about the bottom line throwing public wellfare and the health of the planet to the wayside.
I am opposed to widespread advertising impacting every aspect of our existence, and even now our own bodies.
I see a vast difference in someone promoting a piece of art that they created (or a book they wrote), and someone being paid to sell ad space to corporate advertisers. (I know many of you disagree with this). I also do not agree that doing a job for a magazine or newspaper is essentially 'taking ad money'. It has to do with the direct exchange of services, I create a work of art (which has inherent value), providing a service for my client and I receive money (value) for that. My reasons for this are largely philosophical and probably another topic altogether.
An idea that was presented to me was to take the advertisers money and give a large portion to charity, thusly transforming the negative into something positive (effectively thumbing our nose at the corporation). It seems at first glance a viable option, but as I sit with it I still have some problems. This has to do with what kind of energy I want to put out into the world, and that I choose to be accountable for all of it. I do not wish to contribute more to the rampant consumeristic culture that we already find ourselves in. And, this is entirely personal.
What if I chose certain companies (ones that I believed in) to advertise on my site? Yes, this is an option. I do like to support people whose work I value. I still have a problem with recieving money for this, once again it comes down to credibility for me. I want my readers to trust that I act not only for personal gain or monetary reward.
So what do I say to the people who tell me to 'suck it up there's nothing you can do about it, this is just the world we live in'? I choose to believe that I am not voiceless, and that I do have some impact on the world, and if I choose to give up on the kind of society I wish for myself and my family then something is lost. The fact is, change IS occuring. New companies and organizations are starting to look at different models for business practices, (based on the betterment of the world as opposed to the destruction of it, human needs put before money), and so I do feel hopeful. I also feel the need at times to speak out against things that I question, confident that the readers I have (intelligent, discerning souls), might want to look at them too.
I started writing a bit about how advertising erodes our visual environment, but then realized that this is quite subjective and that many may feel the same about some of the 'guerilla art' that I put out there. Though I will say I find most ads souless, and ugly, which causes me to worry about the visual junk we are constantly exposed to on a daily basis. Again, a personal thing.
So why did I choose to write about this? I feel compelled to save a medium that I believe is for all of us from being de-valued. I realize that this is a HUGE undertaking, and that maybe this is not what people want. So I will do what I need to do for myself in this arena. I am putting up an icon that reads, "this is an ad free blog", mainly because i would like people to know that when I recommend a site it is because I genuinely like it. With the popularity of blog ads I now feel it has become necessary to state this publicly.
As always I am learning with/from you. Thank you for your words.
Posted by kerismith at November 05, 2005 03:16 PMWow! THanks for these posts on blog ads. I've been tempted to earn some ad dollars but always come back to the idea that a bill board is really ugly and intrusive...weather on the side of a road or on a side bar in my blog. I agree with you about keeping big business out of blogs. But others are jumping on wholeheartedly and it will change the nature of advertising completely. Maybe even the political landscape as well. It is a very powerful medium and the big shots are just discovering this. Meanwhile, I'll stick with no ads. My blog is mine!
Posted by: lindsay on November 27, 2005 09:28 AMLa concha de su hermana puta y mal cogida. Los voy a hacer cagar a todos, hdpīs.
Posted by: santiago on November 21, 2005 05:28 PMKelly:
I recently left an abusive job myself. Of course I wouldn't suggest anyone stay in a situation like that. And I think it's a very terrible shame that kind of thing happens at all, to anyone.
But if you're saying, (and I'm not saying you are, but if anyone is) saying that I, or anyone else, should visit Dooce's blog, and turn out in favour of ads, out of sympathy for her husband, that's appeal to pity, and so I don't think it really relates to the discussion about blog ads, directly. That said, if personal sympathy is your personal reason for cutting one particular blogger slack about their advertising, then I think it has more to do with your personal feelings towards that particular person, and that's fine, I understand - but I still think it's not directly related to the issue of blog ads, in general.
The fact remains, that while you may find the ads non-intrusive on one blog or another, others apparently disagree with you on that. I find adverts on billboards to be distracting at inopportune times, and spoiling of the environment, but I'm sure there's plenty of people who would argue with the both of us on that, and say they don't even notice billboards. But if that were true of most, that ads are easily ignored, no company would spend that kind of money on a billboard, nor would they spend that kind of money advertising on a blog.
I use Yahoo Mail every day. And I do notice the ads, but I do tune them out most of the time. One particular ad that's been running since yesterday has really grabbed me though... It's the one about credit card late fees, and they're using the Avian Flu scare to grab your attention. Something about that doesn't sit right with me. But lo & behold, I'm still thinking of that ad - so their advertising people accomplished stage 1 of their goal - it's been firmly planted in my mind... (I have no intention, though, of letting them accomplish stage 2 with me though. heh.)
Am I going to stop using Yahoo Mail? Probably not, just because this is one offensive ad out of probably less than 10 in the 6 or 7 years I've had the Yahoo account, and what I read in the other thread about Gmail makes it sound far worse, and creepy.
Bottom line is, Yahoo Mail (and the Onion for that matter) has a lot more to offer me than an online journal. ;) Though others may have different requirments, priorities and tastes.
If I felt that a negative impact of ads overwhelmed the benefits of using Yahoo Mail or visiting The Onion, I would avoid them too.
Regarding Anja's comment:
"I really don't think that magazines would cease to exist if there were no advertising. We would find other ways, I'm sure."
I wish that were true, but having worked in the magazine industry, I know different. I have seen way too many intelligent, creative, thoughtful magazines go under because of the sad truth that they could not get enough advertising. That is what sustains a magazine, unless you have someone in charge who just happens to have lots and lots of money that they are willing to literally throw away (small niche mags and start-up mags do NOT make a lot of money).
What kind of magazines survive? The big names that can get the big fat advertising contracts. And do they have power over editorial content? Of course. Remember the 'Target' issue in the New Yorker recently? It was an abomination. But a sad fact of this industry. It's not fair, but one has to face facts. And try and fight them, too, even if the chance of winning seems impossible.
I hope that smaller publications can evetually find alternative ways of supporting their magazine, but it is a tough battle, for sure.
Keri, I love your site. I am a regular reader of both you and Dooce. Now, this message isn't for you--this is for the other comment posters: have you ever been in an abusive job?
I stand behind what Dooce has done to help her husband who was in a very bad job. A lot of what she writes sounds somewhat upbeat and funny, because that is her writing style, but for him...I understand. I worked for two and a half years with an abusive boss (and, I should add, a handful of abusive supervisors in an unhealthy work environment) and I wasn't able to quit my job because I didn't have a creative way to make a few extra dollars, and by the end of my time there I was severely depressed, demoralized, and sick. It was impossible for me to find another job while I was in that situation, particularly because I was regularly called "worthless" and "an idiot", which made getting on the horse pretty difficult.
I don't like ads either--I really do side with Keri on this, for the most part, and would love to banish billboards and the advertising slapped on every single surface one can buy. But that's out in the world; here, I *choose* to read Dooce's site (mainly because I find it funny and interesting); it's not a necessity like grocery shopping or riding the bus. It's not in my face if I don't want it to be. It seems the passion with which people are arguing this is ill-placed. I know where the text is on her site, I simply ignore the ads.
Posted by: Kelly on November 8, 2005 01:37 AMoh, by the way - cute thought bubble drawing. ;) Very good anti-ad. hehe.
Posted by: Chloe on November 8, 2005 12:18 AMOh, "The Corporation" was an excellent documentary. Very rational and to the point.
Thanks for reminding of that, because I had to go find my note I'd made from it, that I'd meant to post with my moving reviews, but had forgotten. (if anyone's interested)
As someone, myself, who has worked much as an artist in advertising, I can say before I had worked in advertising, I was LESS aware of the effect on society. It's my experience in advertising that opened my eyes to how some of it is very detrimental.
Indeed, I think a lot of the people who formed, & have worked on, Adbusters, have worked in advertising, and some probably still do.
I would say that not all advertising has a negative effect on people, culture & society. Which is why I don't think there's anything wrong with working in advertising, or using advertising, per se. (And, as with just about anything, I think it's pretty individual for everyone exactly where the lines in the sand are drawn.)
I would like to think I'm somewhere in the middle, but that's just my perspective! haha.
I don't know how one can show that it's anything like irrelevant in its impact. If it didn't work somehow, people wouldn't put out so much money in the effort, that's for sure.
Of course some people are better at ignoring ads, and avoiding their impact, than others. But I think a lot seeps in without us knowing it. I don't exclude myself from this - and that's when I stand up, and try not to be voiceless... because I don't like it when it's forced upon me. And I think that if anyone tells anyone else to suck it up and accept something unacceptable to them is either foolish or nasty. With that kind of attitude, women would still not be allowed to vote or smoke in public, and human slavery would still be legal.
As for the personal component... It's hard to present evidence or cite examples, in support of an opinion regarding blog advertising, without naming blog names to some degree. So I don't know... I guess it's impossible for this to be completely impersonal for everyone. However, I saw the previous post as pretty not-personal... As in an opposing opinion, rather than fightin' words or whatnot.
Though again, it's impossible to even have an opposing opinion without someone somewhere construing it as fightin' words. Indeed, apparently there are some people who treat anyone who presents a different, autonomous, opinion as a threat to be bullied into submission & agreement. ;)
Note to KARA - when someone verbally assaults you - it says more about them than it does about your opinion. ;)
As for to blog ad or not to blog ad...
I think everyone should do what they feel is right for them, at whatever point in their life. But to also remember that the decisions they make come with consequences... some good or some bad, some good and bad, and often not the ones they had exactly expected.
As I said in the other thread, stories like Helen's plastic bag ads story is the main reason I'm very wary of Google Ads.
I reserve the right to change my opinion on the topic, and various topics, especially if I find new information, or as things change. And I grant others the same courteousy.
As well as I accept the autonomy of others to completely disagree with me about just about anything... (though I might not choose to hang around with people who disagree about certain things - for example, lying, cats, etc.)
Keri,
Why is it that you have to starve for your art to be and artist? I only mention that because you mentioned the money/ad connection for Dooce. Is it bad to make money to support your art? I guess I'm not sure why it is a bad thing for her. What works for her may not work for you, but why is it bad that she has these ads cluttering up her blog, and that she is making money? I'm not bashing you, please understand I've read and enjoyed your blog for the last year, and even bought your book, but why do you care?
Posted by: Julie on November 7, 2005 07:50 PMi feel as if these comments (esp. sara's) are getting off topic and are becoming more of an attack on keri rather than a discussion about the nature of ads on blogs. even if keri's posts have angered you, that does not give you the right to be ignorant. stick to the subject.
Posted by: adele on November 7, 2005 06:19 PMAngilique,
I totally agree with what you said. And I'd just like to add that no one is "better" if they do not have ads on their site or is 100% honest or struggles financially in order to make art.
It bothers me that that is the message I tend to get from Keri and her "Supporters." While I enjoy Keri's site to a point, I don't think of it as gospel or that she sheds light or lives a dream or is better than. She's a blogger. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like anyone else on the web.
Posted by: sara on November 7, 2005 05:43 PMWhat if we could make our lives an ad free zone?
I would love that.
I will make my life as free of ads as possible.
Your fan.
Posted by: Lani on November 7, 2005 05:23 PMHow are we to know that anyone is being "honest" in this forum? We take chances when we read other people's blogs and we either believe what read or not, whether there are ads on the blogspace or not. Just because a blogger is judgemental and non-passive and opinionated doesn't mean he/she is more truthful or more conscientious. I read many blogs, including yours, and I take it for whatever it is. I don't know you personally, so I couldn't say that you are any more honest than two strangers sitting beside me at the dentist's office - one reading Elle and the other reading The New Republic. You've made a lot of value judgments in these past two posts, not only on Heather Armstrong, but a lot of other people including myself -- the owner of a home-based retail business, a person who's not wholly bothered by blog ads, a person who makes art but doesn't make a living with it, a person who watches television, even. I'm not ready to click the X box on the browser to either your blog or dooce's, because you say what you say. You're just different people who have different views. You don't pay my bills, raise my child or even care whether I'm taking my vitamins. To me, you're just words -- sometimes artful, sometimes insightful, sometimes entertaining, and sometimes wrong.
Posted by: Angelique on November 7, 2005 04:14 PMHey Keri
First time visitor to your blog, but felt I must make a comment. This ad thing is a complete puzzle to me - I went to the site in question - never been there before, never EVER (!) going back. That's not a blog, it's a lecture. And not a very interesting one either. Funnily enough, I didn't really notice the ads that much and certainly didn't click on them. I prefer personal recommendations, that's the only kind of ads we need. I find it very hard to imagine she could really make that kind of money from it, but it's a mad world. Nice to 'meet' you, and as Arnie once said, "I'll be back".
Here's my perspective, and I guess I'm totally out in left field here.
I read blogs that either interest me (news) or blogs that make me feel "close" to the writer. Not creepy stalky close, ya know what I mean.
I feel close to the writer because they responded to either an email or comment that I left.
I'll happily click their ads till my fingers fall off.
Dooce, not so much. At first I was all like in love and all, but then I noticed she doesn't interact with the blog world. No comments, doesn't respond to email, no links. Her reasoning is that she is just "telling her own story". Ok, and now she wants us all to click on her ads?
To paraphrase her all caps style I DON'T THINK SO.
I guess I'm totally in left field here because I've posted this on other blogs and been fiercely assaulted by Dooce fans.
Posted by: kara on November 7, 2005 03:36 PMKeri,
I have been a sporadic reader of your blog, and now your stance on blog ads will make me a very regular reader of your blog!
I admire your willingness to stand up for what you believe and not be woo'ed by corporate dollars. It is obvious that with the increasing popularity of blogging, corporations feel this is the "new frontier" and assume that anyone with a readership will be easily "bought" with their dollars. BRAVO for taking a stand! Its not always about money, sometimes its about personal ethics.
The hotly debated "Dooce" website is the virtual equivelent of standing at a freeway offramp with a sign that says "Spare change, anything will help, God bless...."
Posted by: Deb on November 7, 2005 01:17 PMadvertisement, n. A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage.
recommendation, n. Something that recommends, especially a favorable statement concerning character or qualifications. Unpaid.
When I tell you that I am reading a book I like and link to it on my site it is a recommendation, and comes from me, because I like to share my interests on this forum. I am not promoting amazon, I have no interest in how amazon does or how much money they make.
additionally,
because I put up an icon that declares this an ad free blog it does not mean that I am saying that blog with ads are bad or insincere. I do it to assure my readers that what they are reading comes directly from me.
Keri,
Been reading your blog for some time and I'd like to comment on your ad-free blog discussion: I think it is valid to declare yourself ad-free, though I know some people would argue what consists of an ad? Would the reading list on the side of your blog consist of an ad if it goes straight to Amazon for example? Or is it a simple way to share the great books you are reading?
I think blog writers can choose whether they put ads up or not - it is an individual right. I doubt it would effect readership anymore than ads in The Onion, commercial breaks during the Daily Show or movie trailers. Fans are fans - they will return as long as the content satisifies them. But it is a personal choice, and that is great that you choose no ads and dooce can choose ads - to each her own! In a world that audiences have little choice in the matter and we are attacked by ads in every medium, I personally think it's great that you choose to not use ads, and it's cool that dooce says ads work for her.
You're a very cool inspiring woman, Keri.
Posted by: Jemma on November 7, 2005 12:51 PMThanks for this, Keri.
This may be of interest: http://www.newdream.org/kids/index.php
On hypocrisy, if you remove the element of time, it's impossible to avoid being a hypocrite. It's an oversimplified manner of viewing things...I guess what I'm trying to get at is that we can't possibly know or immediately realize everything related to our beliefs and statements...for me, it's something I have to accept if I want to continue growing.
Its when we practice isolation from our past selves or deny a philosophical realignment/new ideas that I personally worry about being a hypocrite.
Posted by: BeastlySum on November 7, 2005 11:51 AMThank you all for the continued support. I was fully aware that after I published these posts I would lose some readers. The truth is this is a public forum. All bloggers know, (or learn at some point) the challenge in that. When *we* put our lives and opinions out into the world we open ourselves up to criticism, we ALL get it. It is impossibe to please everone, and bloggers have to accept this. Even the ones who write in a passive manner.
Thank you so much for your support. I mentioned here that I do feel there is a distinct difference in sharing my work with the work and accepting corporate funding (as echoed by Katrin below). So I disagree with Karen (Chookoolooks) on this point.
I am not a corporation. I do not wish you to purchase my book if it is not something you believe in yourself. I do not wish people to read my blog if they do not respond to my sensibilites.
Cathy:
When you say that you are *ad free* (whether you have a lot of readers or not), you are making a statment about what you believe in and what kind of society you want to live in. This is very important in that if enough people believed in it, a change would occur. I learned recently that the Russian Revolution was started by a few angry peasants.
note to all:
As mentioned previously, comments with fake email addresses will be deleted. If I am going to stand behind my words I ask that of you too.
Interesting conversation - your post and the comments. I was steered to dooce when she began the ads and wondered how long it would last (not being a constant reader). Ah. So it is working. But look at all her readers. It pays both ways, it seems.
So if I say, I don't want ads on my blog - who cares? If I had a big readership then the choice would be much more interesting.
Til then, I prefer ad free.
I am reading your side since maybe two years now and I love it, cause it inspires me and it makes me feel that I do not stand alone in my values there are people in many different parts in the world who think like me... I really think recomending books (it's more like a friend who tells me what books she loved) or showing someones art (art is - if it is honest - only another expression of someones personality and I think Keris books are honest) is not the same than advertising. But other people expressed this even better before me (sorry about my language troubles)
Katrin from Berlin
P.S. I do not own a TV, too and there are no ads on my blog).
P.S. I do show your books to my students here in Berlin to inspire them, and they love them too
Kudos for standing up for what you believe in. I would mention, however, that as long as there are links to your book and your reading list on your website, however, your icon/logo doesn't ring entirely true.
But seriously, good for you for taking a public stand.
Posted by: Chookooloonks on November 7, 2005 09:25 AMI really don't think that magazines would cease to exist if there were no advertising. We would find other ways, I'm sure.
Thank you Keri for writing this, I'm with you all the way and you put it very nicely! It's disconcerting to see how more and more people (ie blogs) are giving in and allowing ads. To me, it's a matter of principle (not self-righteousness!). Could I use your ad-free banner? I would like to.
This is an important discussion.
Posted by: Anja on November 7, 2005 08:57 AMI was reading your blog on this topic and eagerly told my husband about it. In his former life he was a senior VP of Internet Marketing for an international ad agency. His clients were Xerox, Jenny Craig etc, when I told that someone was making a living from the internet ads on their blogs, he simply did not believe it. He couldn't believe that anyone got enough clicks to generate that kind of income. Any kind of real income as a matter of fact. I began wondering if ?Dooce? is it, had not led people down a path, claiming that the ads did generate the much needed income as part of her own hype.(Not that hype is a bad thing) After all, I had never been to her site and now I have, I even checked out what ads she had choosen to place.
Advertising and marketing are a constant topic at our house, as I am an illustrator myself. Tom and I are always interested in what people are doing for advertising these days that is effective and we are currently watching the trend of companies like Sears and AmericaWest Mortgage, the companies that sponser the TV programs, Extreme Home Makeover and Three Wishes. I think that the companies that continually give back to the community are the ones to watch and the ones to frequent with our business.
We can apply that to our blogs, I started my blog after reading yours for some time. (Inspiration! And a full circle moment for me) I really have a desire to help women make money utilizing their creative talents, am I giving back to my community?...it may be a stretch but I hope so.
What I do know is that, Keri, you are giving back, I get a lot of emails about getting started as an illusrator and I have referred people to the articles you have posted.
Maybe in the bigger picture, it is about what you are really putting out there to the universe and only your heart can guide you on that.
Hey Keri, you should make that lil' image at the top into a banner for people to display on their websites (and link back to you with) ^_^
Posted by: Catherine on November 7, 2005 05:33 AMads on blogs. I had no clue. I just had to comment *bravo* to no tv. ;) We haven't had one in 'bout 15 years and I often hear, "wow..I wish I could do that" while I silently think..you could, you know... So I'm tickled to know that you don't have one. THAT is cool. I keep signatures off on bulletin boards, no tv, read the paper once a week...I'd go into shock over ads on blogs.
Posted by: Sharyn (Torm) on November 6, 2005 11:27 PMHi Keri,
Longtime reader. First time commenter. Thank you so much for this and the previous post. I appreciate you opening a discussion on a very important, but not widely-discussed, topic for the blogging community. I, too, see the greater cost when advertisers become involved, and I applaud you for proclaiming your site ad-free. I am surprised by the number of antagonistic responses, but, then again, I face the same sort of defensiveness when I explain some of my choices as a parent (no TV, no clothing with advertising/characters). What's the harm with a t-shirt with GAP emblazoned across the front? Well, true, there's no immediate harm, but my child is not a corporate billboard. It's that greater cost that is at stake. I highly recommend the organization Commercial Alert (http://commercialalert.org/) if you are interested in more information on fighting commercialism.
Posted by: Stephanie on November 6, 2005 11:20 PMI really like your blog, although I only discovered it (and the blog world, in general) recently. Great job! Very inspiring! I agree with your sentiments about advertising 100%. I think Lani (above) said it very well. It is a breath of fresh air to have access to a wide range of "media free" perspectives on the web.
I feel just as you do -- a definite loss of respect for those who accept ads on their blogs. This is not only a complete turn off to me it also promotes the kind of gimmickry I've seen already. For example, dooce implies she mentions britney and what's his name?? in her blog as a tease for those who are googling these two. Am I supposed to believe that it is just a coincidence that this practice increases the hits she gets on her site and therefore its marketability? Give me a break.
Keep doing what YOU are doing. You are right to realize that money isn't everything. Katrina reminded us of how quickly we can lose every material thing we own. What good is any of that anyway when you've sold your soul? And for me a sale is a sale, whether it be to some "PC" cause, Exxon, or the NRA. It's all about the money.
I do think it is a major injustice & sign of our culture's warped value system that artists, such as you, have to struggle to get by. However, I strongly believe that when you live your life with integrity things have a way of working out, perhaps not extravagently, but abundantly, anyway. You WILL be rich in the things that truly matter.
With kudos for your excellent site and profound respect,
Donna
Yeah...ads!
I had google ads for a while. One day I wrote about a town here in NZ that eliminated plastic bags from shops. A collective called the 'bag ladies' sewed lots of plain calico bags and distributed them to all households. People were asked to bring their calico bags, or their own plastic bags or boxes. The whole town got behind it. It is a very inspiring story.
Anyway, the next day the google ads on my page were for plastics companies and plastic bag manufacturers! Yeeeeikes! I felt so humiliated and embarrased. There I was encouraging people to think about their plastic bag usage, and diminishing plastic and packaging...and the ads on my site were in direct contradiction!
To be fair, it only happened once - the rest of the time, the ads were about vintage fabrics, knitting patterns, gardening websites and other things that had come up on my blog...and I felt okay about that. But this one time that it did happen bought home to me how essentially I had lost control of what was happening on my own website. And anyway, who is to say that all those other sites were 'ethical' companies that I would normally support?
I no longer have google ads.
Integrity can sometimes come at a cost, but it is worth it.
Posted by: Helen on November 6, 2005 05:47 PM. . . a few years ago I was doing a lot of feng shui consultations for people, and since most of our homes have lots of angles and odd shapes, and mirrors and crystals are easy fixes for these, my clients had to go out and purchase these. I thought: why not sell them myself - I'd make some extra money and save my clients a trip to a store. But after a couple of months I felt so sleazy, that exact credibility thing that you are speaking about, that I sold my stock to a local store and sent people there. I lost about $300 a month in income but I gained a cleanliness back to my work that was priceless. I guess that's what all of this boils down to is what feels true for people, and for some people, like dooce, apparently, having ads, even lots and lots and lots of ads on their site is okay to them. Me? I'm even feeling off about the few amazon.com listings for books I recommend. Already I've moved them down from the top right to the bottom right hand side of my blog page. And I know that they'll soon get pulled entirely. But here's where it gets weird: where is the line? You say that you draw pic for a magazine and that it's an even money for art exchange separate from the advertizing. But it's the ads that provide the money you receive. With no ads there's no mag. I know that you asked us to move away from the personal, but oh wow is this ever a personal thing :) I have to stop now because my head is now filling with a dozen things to write and It's *all personal* :) I'm so glad you're posting about this stuff . . . it's helping me clarify things . . .
Posted by: katherine on November 6, 2005 05:06 PMI really love this entry. I probably did not make it clear in my comment to your last post that I am deeply convinced the ad placing comes with a greater cost and although I canīt name it, sometimes I think itīs indifference. One very violent thing is the power of seduction (the typical tool of the ad industry), as strange as it may sound. What weapon can you hold against it? Hardening up? Seducing back? Or, like someone else said about ads, choosing to ignore? What happens to you if you get used to constantly ignoring parts of your environment because you donīt want to be spoken to all the time?
Posted by: stosova on November 6, 2005 04:44 PMThe David, as in the David and Goliath mentioned on the first comment.
Posted by: Krista on November 6, 2005 04:40 PMThanks Keri Smith, for being the David. I appreciate the logo, and your ad free environment on the web.
Posted by: Krista on November 6, 2005 04:40 PMi hear what you are saying, and i respect it. i love the icon, too.
Posted by: adele on November 6, 2005 03:52 PMI think what I value most about blogs is they often provide a way of getting news from all parts of the world that isn't (generally) market driven. You can't really say that about newspapers, TV, or other media. These guys all have to bow to the wishes of their advertisers.
I like my blogs simple, clean, and free of advertising.
Thank you Keri!
This is obviously a hot-button issue for many. One of my dearest blogfriends tried putting ads on her site for awhile. They were ads geared only toward subjects near and dear to her--very PC, environmentally correct, etc. But she removed them after the briefest time because it just didn't feel right to her, even though she could certainly use the added income as a freelance writer. I hear you loud and clear that this is a medium that has been dear to you for several years and that you feel you must do what you can to preserve its integrity. I support you in that...AND, I fear you may be battling huge forces leaning the other direction. When Yahoo is sponsoring Kevin Sites' blog now...well... We've got The Corporation in the DVD player right now...I plan to watch it a third time before returning it. I wish it were required viewing in our schools.
Posted by: Marilyn on November 6, 2005 02:31 PMYou go, girl!
Posted by: Lesley on November 6, 2005 02:17 PMI'm glad you say you have your own contradictions and hypocrises wrapped up in this, because I think it's almost impossible to be consistent about this topic. We would all instantly go bankrupt without advertising, we would hardly be able to afford anything anymore. We would be without media, without news... even without the Wish Jar Journal I'm afraid.
Posted by: eliane on November 6, 2005 02:04 PMThe Corporation is a great movie. I recommend the book, too. Other books worth reading which are similar to this subject are:
Trust Us, We're Experts: How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles With Your Future, and Toxic Sludge Is Good For You: Lies Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry
Both can be found on this site:
http://www.prwatch.org/books
Once you start questioning the advertising industry and the media and its relationship to larger corporations, it becomes quite overwhelming, because it really is a Goliath out of control. But it is important, I think, to question the endless messages that seep into our life, in all forms of media.
Posted by: patricia on November 6, 2005 01:39 PM