New Look--ADVERTISING?

Although I appreciate the new look of the site, I am most disturbed by the

placement of ads when our images are displayed. I am embarrased to ask friends

or family to view a new image I post and the comments I am receiving, because

they will now have to be bombarded with a large advertisement. I also think

that it is an ETHICAL dilema in the fact that our images are used as bait for

an advertisement. Think about it-- If someone sees an image they find

interesting and attractive, or whatever reason they want to view it more

closely, they click on it to get a closer look, and wham-- big advertisement

almost as large as the image itself! If photonet is going to farm out our

pics, and the interest they generate, to advertising----THEY SHOULD BE PAYING

US! I pay a membership fee in order to view other's works, learn from them,

share what little knowledge I have, and get feedback on what I am doing well,

and what I need to work on. I don't pay a fee in order for this site to then

use my images as bait for others, in order to get blasted by advertising. This

has CROSSED the line. As a business person I know how much advertising revenue

can contribute to the site, but it should be left in general places, not the

individual pages of members and their work. I am outraged and feel like my

work is being taken advantage of. It makes you wonder if PN gets paid more for

ads that are placed on the most popular artist, most rated or viewed images

versus the artists that have low averages in rating, or cummulative averages of

3-4 ? Interesting thought. What do others think of this? Do I have a gripe,

or is the business side of me, paranoid? Do you like the fact that an ad

almost the same size as your image, is displayed in the middle of your comments

and critiques?

Lesa if photo.net thinks it is fitting for them to place advertising into our gallery photos I guess that means it is acceptable for us to also place our own personal advertising into those areas too. Something like this comes to my mind, "Single White Male seeks LTR with opposite sex..."<p>The administrators of PN have really pushed the limit this time.

Amazon ads only pay the person running them if someone actually clicks on the ad, goes to Amazon, and actually BUYS something. Site providers don't earn anything for simply displaying the ad. So, indirectly, a very well-visited page might generate more earnings than a sleeper of a page (say, a popular member's page vs. a newbie), but it has more to do with why people are visiting the page in the first place.

 

When you hit a page on PN that's talking about equipment, which is mostly text, and which is about a particular topic, the displayed ad will probably do more good, revenue-wise, because it's likely to show something relevent to the content on the page being shown. On the other hand, when you're drilling down to the large view on a particular shot, it's very unlikely that the ad in question will generate anything like the same amount of click-throughs and purchases (given why the visitor is looking at the page), but it's definitely going to alienate some members (especially those of us that have felt it important to buy subscriptions!).

 

As a guy that also runs web sites, I can tell you that pages displaying large images are the bandwidth killer, and thus a huge source of expense, hosting-wise. I understand the urge to run revenue-generating ads on the very pages that cost the most to display. There just has to be a happier middle ground: those large Amazon panels aren't the only size banner that Amazon will serve up, and I'm guessing that the PN staff is catching an enormous earful on this one right now. Personally, I find it very unlikely that the ads running against the content that I contribute to the site will generate $25 more per year. But I'd gladly pay $25 more per year rid "my" content of those ads. I bet I'm not the only one.

You can block all the advertisements on internet if they bother you - it's not a problem. The problem I have is that everytime I log in on photo.net to answer on question then appears downloading window... :) I got to click cancel, go back and refresh web site. (it's tcl file, the full name is: "<big><big><b>q-and-a-post-reply-form.tcl</big></big></b>")

From what I understand there will be no more "paid" subscriptions. Seems as though the PN gods value the almighy buck more than the users that have made it what it is. Well, when enough people leave, the advertisers will not like the low traffic figures and they will bail out as well.

Matt I am with you. I value this site, and the opportunities to learn from others so much, that I would pay a bit more for membership if it meant not having to deal with ads on my personal images. And Shawn you are right. I have some some attempts of 'grapher's to advertise their own sites or businesses, not very often but it does occur. In the most simple form a business name on the image itself. But yes...let the marketing run wild...everyone advertise, and then it will so congested that no one will view the site at all. Bryon you are right...the almighty dollar has once again poked its head in and attempting to distort artistic expression and art in general.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00K5lJ&photo_id=5641694&photo_sel_index=0">The World`s largest ad... uh, river</a>

I will block all my albums (Only folders with a positive sequence number are displayed in your portfolio. So, by making the sequence number 0 or negative, you can suppress the appearance of a particular folder in your Portfolio Display)

 

EVERYBODY SHOULD DO THIS :))

 

IT IS ILLEGAL TO PUT ADVS IN SOMEONE'S PHOTOS W/OUT PERMISSION

Great idea Jeanajean! Thanks for voicing your opinion and I urge everyone to stand up and be heard on this issue, regardless of whether you agree with me or not. LJ

When I joined PN it was with the agreement that the advertising in the comments under the pictures will be out the minute we pay the annual fee. if they are going to stick up with that ad they should place at the bottom and give our subscription money back or better as Matt said to double the subscription fee (which I also gladly pay) and just keep putting the ads on Newcomers.

What if we did block all of our images, and only let one be seen.. one that is an image we all share that states very clearly how we feel?

 

..like a picket line :)

 

I can't believe that I just gave money to photo.net 2 weeks ago. what a f'n shame. Where's my amazon rewards coupon?

 

I'll give them a few days to work this one out, and then i'm going to pull all of my images down, and just leave one with a statement.

Remember (if you are old enough) when cable television was supposed to be advertisement free because you were paying for it by subscription? Remember how long those promises were kept?

 

It does not matter in the slightest what we were told before -- the advertisers have spoken and Greenspun & Co. have taken their cheque to the bank.

Now I'm outraged!

 

from the page where you pay your money... as one of the benefits of becoming a paid member:

 

"fewer advertisements throughout the site, but especially when viewing gallery exhibits by others and when people are viewing your photos"

 

 

...getting my $60 worth of advertisement.... now it's the *ONLY* place where the advertisements are! Wait a second... how much is flickr? ..and I can't seem to find adds on their site.

Joel Aron I agree with you. I thought that my idea could work, but it doesn't. I am going to delete enerything in some days if the advs do not stop.

((:

I suspectt hat is some sort of coding thing that places the ad right under the first comment. If

advertising iswhat it pays for photo.net to stay up and running, well then advertising is fine,

but it should be down at the bottom of all comments.

 

iahve my suspicionsthat those who would preferthe site remain completely ad free have

never run their own businesses. Subscriptions never even came close to generatignenough

money to pay to keep photo.net up and running.

I suspectt hat is some sort of coding thing that places the ad right under the first comment. If

advertising is what it pays for photo.net to stay up and running, well then advertising is fine,

but it should be down at the bottom of all comments.

 

I haveve my suspicions that those who would prefer the site remains completely ad free have

never run their own businesses. Subscriptions never even came close to generating enough

money to pay to keep photo.net up and running.

I am using Mozilla Firefox for accessing Photo.net and I just installed a plugin calld Adblock. It works like a charm and I am no longer seeing the Amazon advertisement when I read comments. 8~)))#

<B>ANDRE and GROUP,</B> I suppose if folks haven't been using computers for 20 yrs, or have only been on PN, they don't really know what stoneage means, looks like or acts like. Choosing AOL is a great example of a bad choice but I'm sure the choice was dollar driven, not quality driven.<P>As for the <I>"Photo.net needs money to run"</I>, have a great product and you can raise the membership fees. When I read the perks listed for those on the PN management team and the expense accounts, I know why more $$$'s are needed to run.<P>I hate to say that I'm fairly new to this site due to reading about changes to come, I've held off paying a membership fee (I have felt a little guilt but I always take a wait and see approach) ~ here they are and a lot will need to change before I pay.<P>How many of you have looked at other Photo Communities and the look and interface? Some don't have a lot of glitz but are very polished in a basic way. Take a look at "flickr" <B>$24.95 per year ~ unlimited</B>. I know of several top posters that have moved on to either <B>flickr, NatureScapes or BetterPhoto</B><P>Jessica

Thus the proposal Ellis, that subscription fee be raised. Again those of us who value this site and the knowledge we gain from it would probably have no problem paying a higher subscription fee. I am not totally against advertising on the site, I realize it is needed for operation of the site. But just not on an individual's display of an image. The fact that PN and Advertisers generate revenue from our work is just plain WRONG. And since the images are ours, and the interest generated from them now profits others, we should be paid for their use. Sorry, I am still on my soapbox, but I feel as if an injustice has occurred. LJ

Just remember that Pnut is not the only game in town. Photosig is still going strong despite becoming Pornosig. Flickr seems to be doing well despite having a membership composed of the most mediocre non-talent imaginable (just what Pnut wants to be). And PhotoPoints -- a good place for photographic artists and where film isn't a dirty word (but accurately described as a big happy circle-jerk).

 

I have already voted with my subscription fees; and it wasn't to Greenspun & Co.

Damn - so theres more stuff BELOW the ads?

 

I'd not realized. I thought the ads WERE the bottom of the page and wondered where all the comments had gone to. Hmm - not a good move IMHO.

 

And where the PJ forum sneaked off to? Anyone seen it anywhere - I cant find it.

</b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b></b>

abcdefg

My computer still wants to download this file everytime when I log in... :) do you have the same problem? Everything seems to work fine on my computer, or maybe not if I'm the only one who has this problem :)

I can't believe all the talk I'm reading about "jumping ship"!<p>When the company I work for started forcing all employees to go to the "Company Today" web site when the browser opened I did not quit my job, but I hacked into my computer to override the system.<p>Instead of all the complaints and threats about abandoning PN why don't you all just remove these offensive advertisements from the HTML data string before the links to those web sites are activated? Let PN and all of your other favorite web sites continue to flood their web sites with pop-ups and advertisements. But you can install software on your computers to stop the pop-ups and to remove the advertisements. I get much more satisfaction by defeating the system rather and jumping ship.

We've only got about 1.5 programmers so it will take us time to get the ad placement/mixture right and also to check for subscription status and not put ads in subscribers' portfolios. Meantime we are concentrating on getting the site relaunched on new hardware, new software, and with this consistent new design. We're less than 24 hours into the launch of the new design. It would be a mistake to make inferences about the long-term strategy of the company based on what 1.5 programmers were able to do over the last few weeks.