Upgradin' the TARDIS

This is the Slashdot thread about a not-terribly-good example of the Gee, Isn't It Funny That Crappy Computers Used To Cost A Lot Of Money genre of article.

The Slashdot thread contains, as is often the case, pointers to some rather more entertaining stuff.

Like this.

This ad, and two more like it, ran from 1979 to 1980 if somewhat flaky online sources are to be believed. If those dates are right then Tom Baker took the Prime's advice; he married Lalla Ward in 1981.

And then divorced her sixteen months later.

Lalla's been married to Richard Dawkins since 1992, a development which the Prime apparently did not foresee. 1992 was also the year in which Prime Computer ceased trading.

Another of the Prime ads:

Doctor Who had, of course, postulated far more impressive computers than this on numerous occasions, so Tom's trademark enthusiasm was in this case difficult to justify.

In another piece of nerd synchronicity, the vast master computer system on Gallifrey was called The Matrix.

Blog payola update!

A reader, on seeing my post from the other day about the wretched hive of scum and villainy (and blatant payola) that is PayPerPost, wrote to observe that Text Link Ads appear, from his experience, to be eager to move in on the same area. Only more so.

Text Link Ads' usual stock in trade is straightforward, non-annoying ads of the type described in their name. But my correspondent, let's call him Harry, says they contacted him to try something a little bolder.

This new scheme apparently pays per undisclosed sponsored link. Include a link from a blog post to whatever dodgy dealer likes the idea of buying these kinds of ads, absolutely do not reveal to anybody in any way that you're getting paid for it... and get paid for it. Genius!

Harry says he's now seeing... unusual... links popping up on a number of blogs that also run Text Link Ads. When a blog that's usually about WordPress plugins and such (plus, tellingly, tips on how to make money with your blog...) suddenly runs a post about this k00l new site y0 that totally letz you watch Spider-Man 3 for free d00d, I believe it is not excessively cynical to suspect that something is up.

(I note that the above-linked blog runs, as well as Text Link Ads, those god-awful Kontera ads. As I write this Kontera are upholding their golden reputation for ad relevance by linking the word "movie" from the fishy Spider-Man post to an ad that says "Find Leading Lease Resources for rent movie online Here." Excelsior!)

Oh noes! I am rejected!

A reader noticed my lengthy and profitable career with ReviewMe (i.e. this one review), and suggested I check out PayPerPost instead.

Both are services that allow Web writers to sell their services to people who want someone to write about something. One big difference, though, is that ReviewMe take half of everything you're paid, while PayPerPost take a much smaller cut.

So that was interesting.

As soon as I looked at PayPerPost, though, I saw the other big difference. PayPerPost lets people list "opportunities" that have the condition that whatever you write has to be complimentary.

ReviewMe specifically forbid that requirement. And that is, of course, their downfall.

It turns out that the kinds of companies that have to pay for blog attention are, by and large, not deserving of positive attention. And so they vastly prefer more... ethically flexible... services like PayPerPost, over ReviewMe.

PayPerPost claim that "open-tone opps" (i.e. "opportunities" to write either positively or negatively about an advertiser) are "the majority", but this is obviously some strange usage of the word "majority" that I wasn't previously aware of.

PayPerPost is, in brief, full of hopeful corporate johns trolling for a blog-whore to write something complimentary. There's really almost nothing there but solicitations to journalistic prostitution, as far as I can see.

They pay lip service to journalistic integrity, saying that they "will not accept Opportunities that require our bloggers to be dishonest in any way". But the "Opportunity" list in reality is a long litany of companies that want bloggers to "promote" or "create buzz" or write in a "positive tone only" about their Web sites or products.

And oh, the products on offer.

Beachfront real estate in northwestern Mexico - about which I, here in Australia, am welcome to hold forth at great length, for pay, as long as I keep it complimentary!

When I'm finished with that, someone wants me to "Review our new free Thai dating site", a job which I'm sure will take no more than five minutes. Thailand's practically in my back yard! Why not?

Oh, and I mustn't forget the doctors offering "labia reduction surgery", "anal bleaching", and every other kind of genital-related plastic surgery that's ever made you say "eew". Positive tone only, guys!

And let's not forget all the representatives of the fine and upstanding payday loan industry, who're eager to get positive coverage for their super-competitive 500% APRs!

Needless to say, all this made me eager beyond words to sell myself out and become part of the burgeoning online payola scene.

Regrettably, though, PayPerPost rejected Dan's Data as a suitable place for their priceless Opportunities.

Fortunately, the PayPerPost rejecting-dude told me what the problem was:

While the content of your blog is fine, I would like to give some advice on your format. When advertisers create opportunities, they are expecting that the post in it's entirety will be shown on the blog. If the posts have the "...Read full post" or just one line with a link to the post, that is a major deterrence for the advertiser. If possible, please format your blog to show the full posts and re-submit."

No problem, man - I'll get right on that!

The fact that the average length of an article on Dan's Data is more than 3500 words, with an average page weight of, I dunno, 200 kilobytes at least, would in no way impede putting the last five articles on the front page in full!

Hell, let's make it the last twenty articles! I could have the biggest page on the Web! Take that, Gene!

The nature of the rejection, of course, is something of a giveaway. PayPerPost don't want real writers to apply. Hell, they don't even require your site to have an archive; all they ask is that your paid-for posts remain "active" for 30 days. Then I suppose you can delete them and swear up and down that you never said a word about how that Psychic Development Course was the best thing ever.

I'm not making that up, by the way. "Promote Psychic Development Course" is one of the current Opportunities, along with another bunch of courses and tutorials from the same people, all of which I'll go out on a limb and say are just as bogus. And the quacks and shysters just keep on coming.

PayPerPost also say that "Nobody wants to hear how much you got paid for your sponsored post."

Actually, y'know, I think I really rather would like to know whether someone's getting a five buck tip or a $500 windfall in return for his post about how he sincerely believes some dudes have found the cure for dyslexia.

Be aware that people with a Google PageRank as high as mine can make three hundred US dollars, bang, just by answering the call to "Introduce free Spyware Terminator to your readers!"

Oh, and there are lots of YouTube videos about PayPerPost, too. Because PayPerPost listed their own "Opportunity" a while ago, asking for video testimonials. Awesome!

All of this is pretty much the outside scoop in the blogging community, where PayPerPost has been making friends since the middle of last year. But since I don't hang out with the dudes whose benchmark is wringing a dollar out of every one of their RSS subscribers every month, and since I also missed the Slashdot story, it was all new to me.

Fortunately, it looks as if the network is (to coin a phrase) routing around this crap. Payola isn't new, and it's not going away, but it's not making any great impact I can see, either. There's a pretty sharp line between the sell-sell-sell scumbags with exactly one value who "monetize" their readers and the people like me who have, I dunno, maybe 2500 RSS subscribers specifically because I don't keep trying to screw cash out of you all.

I'm sure there are readers out there who can't tell the difference, but I don't think blog payola's going to make those readers any worse off than they already are. Everyone else ought to be able to detect the subtle signs of PayPerPost-ish bulldust.

All this isn't to say I won't put text ads or something in the Dan's Data RSS feed (update: I've done it now!) at some point. The damn thing's getting more than six hundred thousand pageloads a month all by itself. If y'all want to download it that many freakin' times, I do not feel it's unfair to ask you to occasionally punch a monkey or something in return.

Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a reputable feed ad agency - or a disreputable one, for that matter - that can handle my incredibly obscure "text file I upload via FTP" RSS creation technology. They all want to hook into blogging systems that I don't use for good old flat-file Dan's Data.

So my feed remains pristine. Dammit.

Ads! Don't you love them?

I'm sure you'll all be very happy to learn that I just changed the top ads on the main and article list pages of Dan's Data, removing the top-of-page Burst banner and replacing it with a Robert Sherman one, on account of how I quite like money and the Robert Sherman network may give me more of it than Burst does.

There's also separate code for a Robert Sherman popunder - the old Burst banner code could spawn extra windows all by itself.

(As you may have noticed.)

I've been running Robert Sherman banners on this site for a while, now, but not popups.

If you're one of the readers who, as I've previously recommended, blocks my annoying ads, then there's nothing to see here; move along.

If you see the Robert Sherman ads, though, please comment below if you encounter anything particularly offensive. I've previously noticed one Robert Sherman ad from a purveyor of crappy Windows enhancing software which illicitly bundled an offensive popup into their banner whether or not you actually used the popup code (Astonishing! Crap-software vendors are usually so POLITE!). So it won't surprise me much if there turn out to be some other spiders in the Robert Sherman woodpile.

If horrible things show up and Robert Sherman doesn't squash them quickly, then I'll go back to Burst. Ad money is important to me, but not so important that I'm willing to turn my site into a complete freak show.

You may consider those CONGRATULATIONS YOU ARE THE 999,999,999TH VISITOR OMGWTFBBQ ads to be the location of my personal avarice-versus-tawdriness line in the sand. If you see stuff that's worse than that, definitely including anything that says Your Computer Is Full Of Viruses Click OK On This Fake Requester To Install Some Crap Or Other, please tell me.

(Update: I gave Robert Sherman a month, then went back to Burst. Robert Sherman ran a few obnoxious ads like fake error messages, and a few other ads that were just plain broken. That wouldn't have been such a big deal, except that Robert Sherman also don't yet have an online control console that lets publishers vet ads and select which ones they don't want to run.)

3D gamers fascinated by rubber roofing materials: Film at 11.

Regular readers will know that I'm not a big fan of "contextual" link advertising companies. You know - the ones that insert non-standard-looking links into the text of any Web page that'll have them. The links are meant to be to products relevant to whatever the linked word or phrase says but, actually, would only be deemed relevant by someone suffering from a severe aphasic disorder.

(I'm fine with the site owners who decide to run such ads, by the way. You gotta pay the rent, and it's not as if these ads are delivered by malware or something.)

While reading this review of a new game, I noticed some of the tell-tale funny-coloured links, which it turns out are from the contextual ad company Tribal Fusion, which I mentioned in passing here.

Tribal Fusion "strive to maintain pure, relevant content in each of our channels, and accept only a small percentage of publishers who seek representation", and they connect advertisers to their "key audience", on "Hand-picked, Relevant Sites".

Which apparently results in this.

Masterful relevance!

Thank goodness they're so selective. It'd be terrible if they let just anybody in.

(And yes, I'm also aware of the shortcomings of the ad text itself.)

Protest votes

I think a significant amount of the awfulness (warning: bad language, possibility of blinding reflections from Colin Mochrie's head) of the advertising industry comes from the fact that it's never made much sense.

Internet advertising is a great deal more quantifiable than TV, radio and print ads (which isn't to say that Internet ads are very quantifiable; it's just that before that everyone was really making up numbers). But just because you know the quantity doesn't mean you have a clue about the quality.

Advertisers used to be billed according to some vague idea of how many people saw their ad, whether those people cared about it or not. Now advertisers can opt to pay only when someone clicks on an ad. And that's opened up a whole new can of worms.

Take the Google ads on this site, for instance. I get paid when (or, more realistically, if) you click them. Google will be cross with me, though, if I tell you to click them. They would, in fact, prefer you not to click the ads if you have anything but the purest of motives.

Whenever anybody clicks on an ad when they are not actually interested in doing whatever it is that the advertiser wants them to do (usually, buy something), that's click fraud. Maybe "fraudulent" clickers are doing it to make money for a site that they like (or, in the purest form of click fraud, a site they own), or maybe they're doing it to hurt someone they don't like.

Or both.

This issue becomes quite important when you consider how much money people spend for some pay-per-click ad campaigns.

Google's AdWords system, for instance, lets advertisers bid for particular keywords. Basically, when a given keyword appears in a Google search or on a page that runs Google ads, then whoever's bid the most for it gets their ad displayed. Lower bidders, if any, get their ads displayed lower in the list. You can bid any amount you like - I'm sure there are zillions of bottom-feeders who've bid a few cents for all kinds of popular keywords - but if there are a few higher bidders who haven't hit their budget limit, your ad will never be seen.

Google's Keyword Tool is free to use whether or not you've got any kind of Google account. It lets you pretend you're interested in some keywords and see the estimated cost per click (CPC) for them.

Mesothelioma is a favourite of ambulance-chasing lawyers; as I write this, Google's estimated CPC for that keyword alone is a hefty $US14.36. "Mesothelioma attorneys" was $US25.87.

"Debt consolidation" can be perfectly valid, but is often a big fat scam. "Debt consolidation chicago" was estimated at $US30.92 when I checked.

Oh, and name a scam, and it'll carry a healthy price per click. "White powder gold", for instance, is alleged to be a miraculous substance which is produced by no-kidding alchemy; it's bid up to around the eight US dollar per click mark, as I write this.

Herbalife? At least a few bucks a click - heck, the misspelled "herballife" is $US3.73, perhaps reflecting the value to multilevel marketers of customers who aren't too bright.

Ultrasonic pest repellers do not work. But the term "ultrasonic repeller" will still cost you around three bucks a click.

I was initially disappointed by the bids for terms relating to various bogus fuel saving gadgets ("water powered car" was only 52 cents). But then I found "gas pills", which are as stupid as they sound and cost a not-too-shabby $US1.42.

When you can cost someone several dollars just by clicking an ad, it becomes tempting to do so. Just do a Google search for whatever you least like, see if the Sponsored Links include an ad for someone who's trying to sell it to you, click the ad. Bing - money will now be moved from them to Google.

Better yet, find a page that has Google ads on it and is against whatever you least like, and click any ads on it that're from people trying to say the opposite.

The Google ads on Theodore Gray's Periodic Table Table site, for instance, are often weird quacky stuff. Look at a page for a toxic metal and you'll often find an ad from someone eager to find it in your body with a bogus test and/or remove it from your body with a bogus treatment, and at the moment his hydrogen page seems to have attracted a lot of bogus hydrogen power ads. Google reserve the right to just not accept clicks that they consider to be fishy in some way, but there's no way for them to tell whether someone clicking on a Creationist ad on a page about evolution is doing it out of genuine interest or not.

So, with just a click, you can cast your own vote against any advertiser. And if you only click one ad, and that ad wasn't presented in a way that contravenes any of the ad network's rules, then it's singularly unlikely that your click could be told, in any way, from that of a perfectly genuine shopper.

When payments per click are in the single-digit cents, such a vote doesn't matter much. When they're in the double-digit dollars, it does.

I can't wait to see how the next brilliant idea in advertising will go wrong.

(Incidentally, affiliate programs that only pay out when someone buys something avoid this problem. I could put flashing scrolling CLICK HERE!!!!!1! exhortations around my links to Photonlight.com or any one of Ron Toms' various and delectable sites, and all that would happen would be that they'd be somewhat taken aback. They don't pay me a penny if the clicker doesn't become a customer. My Aus PC Market sponsorship ads on Dan's Data, though, are pay-per-click. So don't go clickin' on them like crazy just because you want me to be rich; all that'll happen is that they'll ignore your IP address and/or reduce the amount they pay per click. Donations, of course, are always welcome!)

Place your ad-bets

Before this blog went live, it had a few test posts on it filled with Lorem Ipsum. Google's ad servers try to serve ads that're relevant to the content. Most people's content is not semi-random Latin boilerplate, though, so Google's ad selector isn't very good at dealing with that.

Hence, as I write this, my side column advertisements are for hotels in Turkey, ESR meters (not that ESR), a Who's Who biography link for Bernard Tschumi (!?), and a site that wants to make sure people buy genuine Russian vacuum tubes.

I await with interest the free-associations Google will make in the future.

(Google have, of course, no chance whatsoever of beating the in-line "contextual" ad companies. I mean, what could be more relevant to the word "hardware" in a review of a new motherboard chipset than a link titled "HP nc6400 notebook your government agency"?)

[UPDATE: Google are many things, but slow is not one of them. The ads, for this page at least, are now significantly less bizarre. The top one as I write this is for... Google AdSense! Google haven't gotten around to looking at the front page again, though, so those Turkish hotels continue to rule the roost.]

Posted in Ads. 1 Comment »