Pop-up ads on photo.net?

[mottershead]

<p>Chris, subscribers are already exposed to many fewer ads than non-subscribers. They do not see:

 

<ul>

<li>The skyscraper ads on forum threads

<li>The rectangle ads at the end of forum threads

<li>The rectangle ads at the end of the discussion thread on

photos. (Also these are not shown to anyone if it is a subscriber's photo)

</ul>

 

<p>Subscribers do see:

<ul>

<li>The banner ad in the photo.net header

<li>Any ads that are hard-coded into static pages. The home page

is a semi-static page since it is generated only once per hour.

<li>Any ad that already has a very low exposure rate like the Nokia interstitial, which is currently set up to be once per user per two weeks.

</ul>

 

Personally, I think this phobia about ads on web-sites is a bit overplayed. Surely people living in the developed world in 2005 are used to seeing ads (and ignoring them if they so choose). The main reason that I turn the ads off at all for subscribers is not because I think subscribers are entitled to be spared ads. Its because there are only a couple of thousand subscribers and the $10 per day the site would make from showing them ads isn't worth the griping there would otherwise be in the forums.

[mbb]

Well, Nokia full page ad came twice in few minutes when I opened photo.net page a few moments ago. Seen worse -- good that stopped now.

[jlobb]

I just noticed a 1/4 page square Nikon coolpix ad at the bottom of the last forum thread I opened in the photojournalism forum.

 

If you're gonna throw ads into the forum, maybe you could find a way to make them forum specific. Like if I'm browsing my new PJ forum and I see an add for a coolpix whatever i'm probably n ot gonna click it, but if I see an add for a D2hs, or a new super telephoto lens, or new super mega capacity compact flash card...i'll probably click it.

 

That's just one example. You can probably use your imagination to come up with the appropriate ads for the Canon, Leica(since they have more money than the Saudis), etc.

[mottershead]

We are an Amazon affiliate and we make a little bit of money from it. But nobody who is familiar with web publishing would propose relying on that exclusively, or Ebay either for that matter. Amazon and Ebay pay for advertising on performance. You make a commission when people click through and then buy something on the Amazon site. The commission varies a little but it is around 5%.

 

That sounds like a lot, especially if what people are buying is a camera. But here is how it works out. For every thousand exposures of an ad or a link, you get about one person clicking through. At least that is what we get on photo.net. In some sections, such as the Gallery, it isn't even that much, but to keep the math easy lets call it one.

 

So one person out of a thousand lands on the Amazon site. You still haven't made any money. Before that happens, the person has to buy something. For Amazon, in our case, this "conversion rate" is 2%. That means that out of 100,000 exposures of an ad, 100 people land on Amazon, and 2 of them buy something. Now if they buy a $1000 camera, you make $50. That isn't bad: you are making a CPM of fifty cents. CPM is how much you make per thousand impressions of an ad. That is a bit better than we get from the Google ads, on the average. But it is only about half of what we'd make from regular banner advertising.

 

But the problem is the two people who landed on Amazon and bought something probably did NOT buy a $1000 camera. Probably they bought a book, or a CD, and a book or CD doesn't cost a $1000; It costs more like $20 or $30, at the most. As it turns out, in fact we make an effective CPM of about two cents on the Amazon banner ads that we put up. If we displayed 50 million ads per month, which is more than we could currently display, we'd make $1000. This wouldn't even pay for one week of bandwidth on this site.

 

The only Amazon links that make any kind of reasonable revenue are the links to camera equipment from Amazon in the Equipment section. This accounts for the few times per month when we do in fact make 5% on an expensive camera.

 

I don't think people are paying to run web sites with Amazon links. If you have book reviews on your site you might as well link to Amazon for the convenience of your readers and make a little money in case someone buys the book, but you aren't going to pay for your site that way. If you do reviews of expensive photography of consumer electroics equipment, and you have links to quality vendors, including Amazon, you will make some revenue from referrals. If you are a site like dpreview, you can make a lot of money this way, but then you have to have a staff of people writing timely reviews of everything, and in addition to paying for bandwidth, you have to pay those people.

 

This is why photo.net has banner advertising and nags people to subscribe.

[mottershead]

The system recognizes that you are a subscriber by a cookie on your browser. It is part of the login cookie. If you aren't logged in, or if there is any hitch in your browser sending the cookie, you won't be recognized as a subscriber. Similarly the interstitial is controlled by a cookie. This is how the system knows you've already seen it. If you switch browsers (or perhaps with some browsers, switch around between windows of the browser), the system might not know that you've already seen the interstitial.

[mottershead]

Jonathan, the Google ads tend to be keyword based, and when their technology works, which is much of the time, the ads are relevant to what is on the page. The Nikon ads, however, are coming from an ad network -- Tribal Fusion in that case. They do not have technology similar to Google, and we don't have the ability to send them a list of keywords to help them pick the ad to be displayed on a page.

[kevin_break]

What.

<BR><BR>

No one else uses Firefox with the flash-blocker extension?

<BR><BR>

All I see is a arrow in a circle, press to play.

<BR><BR>

DSL is already zippy and now with no flash loading I don't want, why, ZOOM!

<BR><BR>

[bens]

okay, don't like the ads as much as everyone else, but if brian says they are necessary, i take him at his word. until i find out he's driving a ferrari . . . brian, do what it takes to keep the site going.

[jnicholson]

I don't like ads. Who does? Pesky little vermin. But, it blows my mind that so many people complain about the ads on PN. If we pay, we pay $25 per year. In America at least, most of us pay $50, $60 heck even $100 per MONTH for cable TV and twenty minutes of ads per hour of TV watched. Seems to me clearing away an annoying ad a few times a week isn't that big of an inconvenience.

 

Just don't ever, EVER, sell my e-mail address.

 

Brian is it true that there are only a couple of thousand paying subscribers?

[jnicholson]

Also, gotta say though that I don't see a two megapixel cell phone as a breakthrough product. With or without a Zeiss lens. As I've said before, I'm waiting for the DSLR with the built in cell phone.

[jlobb]

"Just don't ever, EVER, sell my e-mail address."

 

Brian, if I ever find out that you sold my e-mail address I swear I will find where you live and we'll have a talk. just you, me, and my shillelagh.

[dean_williams]

Brian Mottershead , jun 16, 2005; 11:27 p.m.<p>

 

"Chris, subscribers are already exposed to many fewer ads than non-subscribers. They do not see:<p>

 

* The skyscraper ads on forum threads<br>

* The rectangle ads at the end of forum threads<br>

* The rectangle ads at the end of the discussion thread on photos.<br> (Also these are not shown to anyone if it is a subscriber's photo)

 

Subscribers do see:<p>

 

* The banner ad in the photo.net header<br>

* Any ads that are hard-coded into static pages. The home page is a semi-static page since it is generated only once per hour.<br>

* Any ad that already has a very low exposure rate like the Nokia interstitial, which is currently set up to be once per user per two weeks. "<p>

 

Brian, I get the ads subscribers are expected to see that are pointed out above, plus, on the last forum thread I opened a few minutes ago I also have the 160x600 pixel Nokia ad at the right side and the ad at the end of the thread (300x239 pix ad for Cahaba River). <br>I'm a subscriber, logged in, cookies enabled. Am I supposed to get these too?

[andrew robertson]

Anybody can download a modern browser and an ad-busting hosts file, and de-install flash.

Then the ads won't appear.

 

As to the prestige of ads from Nokia, I've seen 'em on porn sites.

[adam paine]

I was kinda disappointed to see the ad but you know where can you go these

days and not see an ad? I believe that if everyone decided to become a PN

patron there would be no need for these ads. But since we live in a world

where nothing is free (except a little internet space) I can understand where

the heros and elves are coming from. We live in a world of marketing anyway,

why should we start complaining now? Peace, AP

[mdickerson]

Wow, a couple thousand subscribers is way more than I would have guessed. Two thousand subscribers would bring in $50,000 a year. Full T1s here cost about $700-800 a month. Buying three of them plus colocation fees would still leave over $1000 a month. When I worked at CD Universe it took about two thirds of a T1 to serve half a million to a million pages a day. So I must be missing something here.

[watermelon]

Oh, sorry posted new topic to similar effect.

 

Yeah, having completly no adverts would likely get me subscribed. I'll say it again here too that if I stumbled across photo.net now with current level of advertising i'd probably move elsewhere.

 

(In-obtrusive Google text links are fine in my books - even click on some of them...)

[mottershead]

Michael, photo.net uses most of a T3. A lot of photos to be served. There are colocation chargea, We have a rack full of hardware that has to be upgraded all the time. And it does pay salaries, the equivalent of about one and half full-time people. (Although it is actually four different people in all.)

[cappoldt]

Jamie said it well re his cable TV comment. . . and when that's paying for a salaries, it's paying for their sportscar, sailboat, and a lot more. These days, the price of a movie ticket is $10+ (up to half the price of a photo.net subscription, espcially if you're seeing the film in Manhattan) and then I have to watch five big-screen commercials before the previews even start. Geez - I once forgot what movie I was there to see.

 

Over-saturation of advertising is annoying, but I'll take a single Nokia phone ad over three full minutes of pimple cream, how Queen Latifa is going to help youngsters improve their self image, or Pepsi any day.

[sabrina_h.]

I too became victim of the large Nokia pop-up ad or the -interstitial ad- as Brian so kindly

clarified. My first reaction was shock. At first, I presumed hackers had hijacked photo.net.

Then I found this thread and have been watching it ever since. I do realize that nothing

can stay afloat without funding, not in the real world anyway. Not Kodak, Leica nor Ilford

-- not even photo.net. Surely changes have to be made to ensure that photo.net will

survive another few years. What those changes will entail are at the feet of the powers

that be. Many people here have come up with good suggestions and I think photo.net has

a better advantage than the bigwig companies I mentioned above, the voice of the people.

 

As similarly mentioned, you must up your subscription numbers. New members can test

drive photo.net for 30 days to get a feel for what?s happening. If they want to stay, they

have to subscribe. I think many subscribers are upset that they have to foot the bill and

suffer the many interstitial ads because they are necessary. Photo.net is full of

information and helpful to a lot of people, but it comes with a price. Somebody has to

pay. I don?t think any photographer would advocate giving his or her services for free and

would quickly de-throne anyone that does, as previously witnessed.

 

Also, fine-tuning the payment process for those outside the USA may be something that

can (need) to be looked into. There?s almost not a day that goes by I don?t see a post,

?I?ve paid my money five months ago and haven?t received a subscription? or ?I live outside

the U.S. and it?s hard for me to pay, even though I want too.? Some people actually want

to subscribe but can?t, or from the outside, it looks like nothing is organized in the

financial area and if you pay your money, it may not get into the right hands or the

member is outright ignored. Luckily, my subscription went through smoothly paying via

Paypal, but I have to tell you, my subscription is up next month and I?m scared to death

that my payment will fall on death?s ears.

 

Furthermore, perhaps you can have a survey form of the kind of products people are

interested in to give you a better idea of the audience. This can be targeted to newcomers

and/or current members alike. I suppose I wouldn?t mind the ads so much if they were

products that I actually use or would be interested in. Me personally, I would like to see

more ads from retailers (stores) as oppose to products. How many times have people

posted, ?Where can I buy this?? Allowing advertiser?s ads on the bottom of every thread is

not a bad idea. You?ll get your impressions and it?s non-intrusive.

 

Not only do you have to worry about newcomers and getting subscriptions, but also repeat

subscribers who would have the option to renew their subscription. To throw your ?repeat

customers? out in the cold would be a big mistake. But I also applaud you Brian for being

as accommodating as you can and rolling with the punches, even when insults are thrown

your way. We?re a tough bunch to live with, but we are full of ideas and information; we

may even inspire. Sure we have bad days and may resist a little change every now and

then, but ultimately, I think the members will understand.

 

Good-luck

[photogrrr]

Just want to say that I just paid up my 68us$, which I should have done a long time ago, and want to put my vote on less ads for subscribers.

 

Having the ads there for free-loaders, but with a clear message underneath saying "you would not have seen this add if you where a subscriber", is the way to do it IMHO.

 

BTW: The "small" nokia flash add stays on top of the drop-down part of the menu, which is quite annoying... (firefox 1.0.4)<div></div>

[david_henderson]

"But I very much hope you don't block the ads. If most people run ad-blocking software, web sites like this will fold very quickly, and then there won't be any web sites like this."

 

Well fine, if you don't want people to block the ads then you have to operate advertising below the level that people will find unpleasant and too intrusive. Even medium term, advertising revenue will not increase arithmetically with the volume of advertising, and it's going to be hard work to persuade those subscribing that they really owe it to you to view all the ads too.

 

I must say I'm surprised by this step and like so many others wonder whether its right to allow long term access to people who won't pay a modest subscription

[mottershead]

The amount of advertising hasn't changed on the site for months.

 

We do a "leaderboard" or a "banner" in the photo.net header on every page. Subscribers see this, and nobody has complained except when an obnoxious ad slips in from one of the advertising networks, which isn't very often. There is a "skyscraper" down the right hand side of forum threads. Subscribers aren't supposed to see this. There is rectangle ad at the bottom of the forum threads just before the "Contribute to this discussion" button. Subscribers don't see this either. In the Gallery, there is similar rectangle at the bottom of portfolio and photo discussion threads. These aren't shown to subscribers or to anyone if the photo/portfolio belongs to a subscriber. If a forum discussion is very short, a non-subscriber might see three ads on the screen at one time (at the top, side, and bottom), but more typically one or two of them are scrolled off.

 

The only change for the Nokia campaign was the "interstitial". We are going to display 1.2 million of these over the next two weeks. This means that every visitor should see it once. We will make more from Nokia's sponsorship in two weeks than we typically make in two months.

 

It is hard to believe that one extra click every few days to move through an ad has people all upset about "too much advertising". Not when people are surrounded by advertising. It is the way whole industries are financed, including almost all publishing except books and almost all television and radio. The people running photo.net don't get to design how the economy works. If everybody was willing to pay what it cost for the publications they read and entertainment they watch, nobody would be more delighted than publishers and entertainers. Nobody would be more delighted than me not to have to sell advertising and spend time figuring out how to serve ads, rather than working on features and content. Almost nobody gets into publishing a web site because they think it will be fun to create a great vehicle for advertisers to run ads. But most web site visitors, like television watchers, radio listeners, and magazine and newspaper readers prefer that the publications be low cost or free and that advertisers pay the costs. Then they complain about the ads.

[cfimages]

Brian,

 

I think a lot of todays anger over the ads may have a lot to do with the fact that the ad came with no warning. Here's a tip for next time - give us some warning. Even a simple thread in the feedback forum saying "We've done a deal with comany x to display an interstitial ad for the 2 weeks starting from date y". Give us some warning - even if it's only 24 hrs. Then the ads won't come as a surprise, and you'll probably see less anger - although you'll see get complaints and debate.

[GerrySiegel]

Just returned from Illinois.Fields of corn and soybeans doing well. Forgot how much I appreciate Oahu practice (law actually) that keeps large billboards from flooding the sides of our roads. We get to see the green stuff,not the huckstering of french fries,casino gambling and mattresses, Holiday Inns, miniature golf,Wendy's chili, and other exciting stuff. Tasteful ads,kind of oxymoronic. Anyway, my modest feedback. And,yes, my renewal is coming,on the way,litle late. Photonet's value to me personally is sort of getting marginal these days, but still retains some interest. I have some folks who know their stuff here, and it gets a daily look-see, after NYT and Economist.

[maurik]

I agree with Craig. Clear communication is important on a site like this.<br>

Like David said, I did not bother with an ad blocker and flash turn-off until today. Now reading all about revenue, I decided, OK, I will click on the ads a couple of time, but at my own choosing. It's not that we don't want you to get the revenue you need to run the site, it is that we want to enjoy the use of your site relatively uninterupted. Had I known the details about the recent adds, as I know now reading this post, I would not have bothered blocking it.<br>

Quite a few of us subscribe. To those who don't, but use the site quite a bit, I would ask: "What is $25.-/year on your photo budget?", I mean, there are so many folks that can apparantly spend thousands on equipment but can not afford the subscription?