Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

If not ads or subscriptions then what?

I read a very interesting article on the tech-news website Arstechnica this morning.

Like most news-based websites, they're clearly finding the going difficult thanks to a widespread downturn in the amount companies are spending on advertising plus the effect of ad-blocker use amongst their tech-savvy audience.

As someone who publishes a tech news/commentary website I can empathise with Ars to a degree -- but I have to admit that none of us in the online publishing game can really feel too sorry for ourselves, regardless of the dwindling revenues to be earned.

Sure, ad-dollars are increasingly hard to come by and those who visit sites such as Aardvark Daily and Arstechnica are more likely than most to have software fitted to their browsers that effectively "disappears" what few ads a publisher can attract.

But hey -- that's the market, there's no point in crying about it. The real challenge is to come up with a better publishing model.

Is there one?

Rupert Murdoch would have us all paying through the nose to subscribe to his various online publications -- would that work?

I don't think so.

Sure, *some* people would subscribe, but the percentage would be incredibly small and all that subscriptions tend to do is irritate most people and force them to find an alternative free source of similar material.

History shows that once people get used to receiving something for free, they're very reluctant to start paying for it.

The "donation" model used by Aardvark is also a pretty weak one. It pays the coffee bill (for which I'm very grateful and thank all those who do contribute) but it's never going to make me (or any publisher) rich.

Micropayments?

Well they've been touted as being "on the horizon" for over a decade now but, even if/when a suitable payment method is conjured up, I doubt it'll do much to change things -- except that the value of a good headline and introductory paragraph will skyrocket as publishers work very hard to try and get you to buy each and every story. Look for more sensational/tabloid lead-ins if micropayments ever see the light of day.

I've already told regular readers how *I* see the future of commercially viable online publishing (and music/movies) being leveraged for maximum commercial gain and user-convenience but it doesn't look as if that "subscribe for a flat fee through your ISP" model will be taking off any time soon (shame -- because it's a gold-mine for all concerned).

Perhaps those sites that really want to earn money from ads and those advertisers who really want to see results from their ad-spend ought to look backwards a little...

Who remembers the good old BYTE magazine of the 1980s? Or the Popular Mechanics/Science magazines of the 1950s?

If you've ever thumbed through either of these magazines you'll notice one amazing thing...

There are often more pages dedicated to advertising than there are dedicated to editorial -- but these were all very popular publications. Why is that? Why didn't the ads drive people away?

Simple -- the ads were well-targeted, informative and gave information about products that were of interest to the target audience. In fact, I recall spending as much (or more) time reading the ads in my copy of BYTE as I did reading the articles.

So here's another option to help the ad-funded model improve its appeal to all concerned (advertiser, publisher and reader)...

Let's focus on creating ads that are really informative and interesting. Ads that convey not just a "buy now" message but ones that help educate you, entertain you or just create some curiosity.

I grow increasingly tired of seeing banners which contain the product name, a picture of the product and a "click here" or "buy now" incitement to action.

These ads don't excite me. These ads don't entertain. These ads don't educate.

Here's what I'm going to try on one of my websites...

I'm going to introduce a "product information" centre where companies can pay money to have their product featured -- along with some related articles, educational material and other supporting content.

Instead of paying $x per 1000 views of a crappy little banner, I'm going to give advertisers a whole page that is laced with information, related links, and other content that will (hopefully) attract users all by itself. Sure, the promoted product/service will be given a high profile and there will be inducements to purchase -- but this will be an "infovertisement" page that not only attracts prospective customers but entertains and informs them.

Of course the creation of such an infovertisement" will cost more than a boring little banner but then again, I'm picking that the effectiveness will also be much higher in terms of actually generating a reader response.

If I'm right, advertisers will soon find that they get a whole lot more value for their money by investing a decent amount in an infovertisement page than they do in having some bureau knock up yet another tatty little banner or gaudy, irritating block of Flash animation.

Of course I could be completely wrong and this could be a totally silly idea -- which is why I'm inviting you, Aardvark readers, to have your say.

Why is it that online ads are seen as "evil" by so many, when the ads in those old (and many of today's modern) magazines were so appealing and interesting in themselves?

Is the biggest problem with online advertising that we're simply trying to get a tiny strip of webpage to do what used to take a half or full page of a print-media publication? Are readers so used to being disappointed "or visually assaulted" when they click on a banner that they simply don't bother any more?

Would the lure of more than just a straight ad-pitch make you a little more inclined to click on an ad for a product that might be of interest to you?

Or will Murdoch rule and will we find ourselves handing over hard-earned cash every week or month just to read online content?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font