Insomnia ([info]insomnia) wrote,
@ 2004-08-05 22:36:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Sneaky me...
I read Salon.com regularly and don't mind saying how good of a news source they can be at times, but I don't have an account yet, and don't plan on getting one until I have a bit more $$ in the bank.

That meant in the past that I would click through all those Salon ads.

...but not anymore. I was curious how they made sure people clicked through on the ads and noticed that if you go to a Salon site that requires you to jump through hoops to read an article, it feeds you the ad and then directs you to http://www.salon.com/news/cookie.html ... so now I just read the [info]saloncom feed on LJ, let the page load, click a link for the Salon cookie URL that I have on my browser's toolbar, and voila... no annoying ad.

But now I feel vaguely guilty for not watching their ad. Even though I *AM* just linking to a public site on the internet, I'm still messing with their business model. Of course, now I'm *REALLY* messing with it, because I told all of you about it.

Salon.com is a good thing. I hope they last. Even better yet, I hope they stop having to twist arms to get people to pay, hiding their content behind annoyng ads.

If you're going to go to the trouble of having real journalism on your site, it behooves you to find a way to make it freely available to the public.

(Post a new comment)


[info]7threality
2004-08-06 12:56 pm UTC (link)
If you're going to go to the trouble of having real journalism on your site, it behooves you to find a way to make it freely available to the public.

um, no, not even vaguely.

Newspapers aren't freely available, even the "free" Metro that I pick up each morning isn't free, just like "free" TV isn't free either. The "free" papers and TV stations are paid for because they are selling you, the audience. The advertisers pay for them, and they pay for them because there is an audience.

So, point of fact, they have found a way to make it freely available to the public, it's all those annoying ads that you click through. If they didn't have the ads, they wouldn't have the funding to let people like you read it. If they didn't have the funding, then it would be behind a subscription fee entirely.

The subscription fee in this case means that you get rid of the ads. You are paying for the paper, so you don't have to see the ads if you don't want to. If you don't pay for the paper, then you should have to see the ads because the ads pay for the paper.

Either way, you are bearing some of the cost of the news that they provide to you. You are paying for the service, because the reality is that the service has to be paid for.
TANSTAAFL

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2004-08-06 03:25 pm UTC (link)
Web sites have different, lower costs of distribution than newspapers, so it's hard to compare the two. I know firsthand that it's possible to run large web services without ads that get in the way of the experience and act in a way that discourages use / readership. I created LiveJournal's revenue model, after all.

Really, my method of escaping the ads doesn't take money from Salon. Rather, it takes money from the people running their ads, as they are losing an 'impression' that they paid for.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]7threality
2004-08-06 06:36 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I'm aware that web sites have different costs, but they still have costs and those costs have to be covered. The costs of distribution for a site may be lower, but the revenue for ads is also lower.

It's a valid comparison because they are all "free" news sources. A free paper, or a free (meaning non-cable) TV station or a free web site all have costs, which are going to be different for the different media. The costs exist and have to be met somehow, which is my point.

In the case of web sites, most either charge for content, or you have access to the content, but you have to put up with ads. A membership means you get to skip the ads. I didn't see anything there that is different (or more annoying) than any other site I visit.

Being required to have to let 1 ad play (while I alt+tab away and do something else) for a day's worth of access to the news site is, IMO, fine.

Have you submitted the alternate business model to Salon.com?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]kungfumegadevil
2004-08-06 06:38 pm UTC (link)
It's true that Salon's got to make a buck, either by subscription or by advertising. However, evading the advertising impacts the advertisers, not Salon. It only affects Salon if the advertisers pull out.

Will skipping the ads cause advertisers to pull out? Honestly, it's unlikely. People like to avoid or tune out advertisements for goods and services irrelevant to their needs. Whether someone patiently sits through a useless ad to get to the content, or finds a way to skip past it, the impact to the advertiser is exactly the same: no new business.

Ads only work when they are correctly marketed to people who want to see those ads. When that happens, people won't skip 'em. Movie trailers are a good example; some people actively enjoy watching trailers for movies that match their movie-going needs, especially for a movie they didn't already know about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]7threality
2004-08-07 12:33 am UTC (link)
But advertisements before the trailers, when you paid to be in the theatre, are a bad example.

My entire point is that salon needs to at least make up their own cost if they want to keep doing what they do. I think alt+tabbing away for 30 seconds is a reasonable price to pay, just as I get up for a drink when the commercials come on TV. I'm skipping the ad.

I'm not interested in the ad, but I would expect that they can track if the ad is playing for someone or not. IP tracking, note that it's not a member address and that they constantly use the cookie to get by without the ad playing for them. Sure it's annoying, but it let's them pay the bills. That's my only beef here, since everyone does seem to understand that the content has to be paid for somehow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]prema
2004-08-06 01:45 pm UTC (link)
i've done more than my fair share of ad clicks for numerous day passes at salon.com. It only makes sense that a post like this should come my way. THANK YOU! (i'd pay too, but.. honestly, it costs me too much :-\)

(Reply to this)


[info]giantlaser
2004-08-06 02:04 pm UTC (link)
I'm not a browser/distro war type of guy. But if you don't want to see ads, install FireFox, FlashBlock, and AdBlock. Then you simply will not see them anymore. It's fantastic.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2004-08-06 03:19 pm UTC (link)
That wouldn't block the special ads that they have for Salon.com, which aren't your typical popups. They're full webpages, often with graphical presentations or embedded videos. They're also designed to not make it easy for you to just click through.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(Reply from suspended user)

[info]insomnia
2004-08-06 09:17 pm UTC (link)
I had that happen to me before too, which is one of the reasons why I don't mind using that URL too.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]lonestaryankee
2004-08-06 09:25 pm UTC (link)
so now I just read the saloncom feed on LJ, let the page load, click a link for the Salon cookie URL that I have on my browser's toolbar, and voila... no annoying ad

what is the link your on your browser's toolbar that you speak of? more importantly, how do i get one for myself?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]insomnia
2004-08-06 10:46 pm UTC (link)
The link is the one I mentioned in the post:
http://www.salon.com/news/cookie.html

Simply drag that link to the toolbar of your browser and let go. It should appear there. You can then edit the link and rename it to whatever you want, if you wish.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…