In a post yesterday, Nieman Journalism Lab’s Martin Langeveld crunched the numbers underscoring the general assumption that “the audience for news has shifted from print to the Web in a big way.” In fact, Langeveld found,
All generally accepted truths notwithstanding, more than 96 percent of newspaper reading is still done in the print editions, and the online share of the newspaper audience attention is only a bit more than 3 percent.
If true, Langeveld’s argument upends notions we’ve taken for granted about the relationship between online and in-print newspaper readership—and thus about the impact of online advertising. While recent history suggests that online ads cannot, on their own, sustain most journalistic institutions, they can still provide one revenue stream among others (subscriptions, etc.).
So we want to know from you: as a news consumer, when it comes to online ads, what will you tolerate? What types of commercial vehicles—pop-up ads, traveling ads that move across your screen—do you find intolerable? What do you think of targeted ads that “know” your consumer habits? And, assuming that ads will remain, in some form, part of the picture of online news—what kinds of ads would you, as a news consumer, most like to see?
I consider on-line advertising in general to be a conduit for the discharge of a raw sewer pipe onto a Web page and ignore it completely, except in a few rare instances. I am, after all, after news and will not be diverted by advertising, no matter how presented.
The kind of "advertising" presented here, and in the print version of CJR, Foreign Affairs and a few, select other publications is another matter, a complement to the publications rather than an aggravation, and I can appreciate and sometimes even respond to such ads.
But on a Web page, even that is compromised by the furtive, omnipresent Google-Analytics, their Ad Sense and other tracking organizations, such as found even here at CJR. With contemporary, up-to-date browsers and the investment in a little learning, defeating the attempt to make Times Square of a Web Page, complete with dancing elephants, becomes an almost triival matter. Of course there's always a text-only browser that one can resort to in the effort to defeat the invasiveness of so-called "targeted ads," a browser that will not recognize or execute Javascript, download images, etc.
The revenue model of on-line advertising, which often seeks to surreptitiously steal from from the Internet traveler what he would not otherwise freely give (tracking and profiling which is not necessarily unidentifiable, anonymous information, boiler plate general privacy policy statements notwithstanding) tends to tar all on-line advertising with the same brush.
Good information is worth paying for.
#1 Posted by Joel Stookey, CJR on Tue 14 Apr 2009 at 09:03 PM
I agree with Stookey that most advertising, as far as I'm concerned, rarely transcends the necessary evil component of whatever I'm reading, in print or online. In fact, I have never even clicked on an online ad. Ever. I'm just not interested, and tend to know what I need...in other words, I can't ever recall seeing and ad and thinking, Oh, yep, I DO need that. Still. Journalism needs ads to survive, and until that changes, I would be willing to put up with quite a bit in the way of intrusive online advertising. And who knows, as targeted advertising evolves, maybe advertisers WILL be able to get an ad in front of me that does let me know about something useful.
#2 Posted by Brent Cunningham, CJR on Wed 15 Apr 2009 at 02:34 PM
@ Joel: The text-free browser is a good example of how technology may adapt to more intrusive advertising. We've already got pop-up blockers, and, in TV land, there are constant complaints that TiVO and other devices allow viewers to whiz past the ads.
Which is why I think online advertising may actually expand beyond the digital world. I know my print New Yorker subscription nets me a few monthly solicitations from Planned Parenthood and the like. But I haven't noticed that any online registrations have done the same. Since newspapers are in the business of selling reader eyeballs to advertisers, I would be curious to see how readers might react to newspapers rescinding their "we won't sell your information" offers when they ask users to register online, and providing those e-mail and physical addresses to advertisers. I am willing pay for free access to newspaper content with a mailbox stuffed with junk mail.
I also wonder if the ratio of edit to ad will change online. In magazines, 50/50 is the norm, and 25/75 is the must to qualify for a shipping discount. And, on TV, you get sixteen minutes of ads for forty-four minutes of content. The Web is nowhere near these ratios. I think we'll see more, bigger ads that are more sophisticated and harder to ignore. They'll require more clicking and more scrolling to capture more of the readers time. I agree with Brent—I don't even see online ads, which means I don't spend time reading them, flipping past them, or even ignoring them. And, I think that'll change. Right now I read on the Web at least four hours a day (which includes papers and blogs), and none of that time goes to the advertisers.
As I see it, it would be a smart business tactic for newspapers to charge a small fee for time-saving tools, like the right to use the "Single Page" button to read long articles. (The Times has it, but the WaPo doesn't.) The option is a courtesy to readers, but it costs the paper pages views. So, either it should be eliminated to rack up the clicks, or else it should be a paid service. I think I'd hate clicking through a long piece, but I'd put up with it, or else, shell out some dollars for a "premium" membership.
In the meantime, how much of my time am I willing to give to newspaper advertisers? Maybe ten minutes a day. Is that enough?
#3 Posted by Katia Bachko, CJR on Wed 15 Apr 2009 at 03:43 PM
Given that the Internet is the closest approximation of a Universal Library since the Library at Alexandria, it seems beneath pathetic that we are consumed with notions about how to 'monetize' web content. The same battles were fought, and lost, in the United States, in the cases of radio and television broadcasting, which have ended up serving the crass lowest common denominator of public taste while lining the pockets of broadcasting plutocrats.
Advertising has had an incalculable effect, as the attention of tens of millions is sliced and diced all but continuously. Presumably, priming the pump of commerce has been determined to be of greater importance than a public environment to foster culture, education, and philosophy. One may safely assume that this all-important decision was made by the very people who have profited mightily from it, not the multitudes who daily are bombarded with commercials.
The Internet, product largely of public funding and the selfless devotion of many millions, has the best chance yet of being effectively owned by its users and serving their higher interests. This marks a paradigm shift, just as open source software has changed the concept of 'ownership' of software that makes computers useful tools, depriving powerful companies of their stranglehold based on proprietary trade secrets.
People such as Richard Stallman, founder of the GNU open source software movement, and Linus Torvalds, inventor of Linux, and literally thousands of others, have effectively shown that proprietary, capitalist software development is neither the only viable model for software development, nor even the most efficient. And, I feel, they have shown that the usual incentives of proprietary wealth and marketplace power are neither universal nor produce the best software. The fact that a large portion of the Internet runs on open source, non-proprietary software is further proof that the paradigm change is more than skin deep.
None of this answers newspapers' need for cash, but may serve to explain why things may not be working out as they might have hoped.
#4 Posted by Nicholas Spies, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 08:03 AM
I NEVER pay attention to Internet ads, especially ones that move or show that old lady's face. I DO pay attention to the ads in my print newspaper. Why? They're local ("oh, here's a guy who does flooring"); they don't move; and they don't detract from my reading the way Internet ads can. Also, at least in my household, the Sunday ads are kind of a ritual. Print ads can simply show more.
#5 Posted by Elizabeth, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 12:27 PM
Since I'm a little old fogey on a small pension I pay very little attention to most ads. The ones that aggravate me and I have told Google so, were those that pop up in the middle of the night with some loud sales beat or song. Since I have complained, I have been free of them. Whether they sell anything to others I don't know. My son has used the internet to find things he wanted at a better price than most stores but whether they were first advertised or not I don't know. He's 30 years old and lives 3000 miles away. I just hope he hasn't been taken in. He seems to be able toi distinguish most ads. Credit card insurance got him for awhile but he should know better now. Most advertisers seem satisfied but that's not my field. As long as vocal ones are not here I will let them be.
#6 Posted by Patricia Wilson, CJR on Fri 17 Apr 2009 at 07:34 PM
I think accepting online advertisers is an essential move. And I think ads that cater to the reader are ideal. Consider why readers are going online for content rather than turning to newspapers. On the web, readers are able to create a media-consuming experience unique to their interests. They read the stories they are interested in, by writers that interest them. The advertising department should evolve right along with these changes. They should supply unique ads to the readers that cater to what their interests are. Not only will this give the reader the experience he/she seeks, but it will also allow media outlets to make more money off of the advertisement, because it greatly increases the number of hits.
Obviously this isn't the solution to financial problems at media outlets but what we have to wake up and realize is that there isn't going to be this ONE BIG CATCH-ALL SOLUTION everyone keeps dreaming of. I'm a college student, so I've had less time to grow accustomed to old models, but I've wanted to be a print journalist for a long time. This transition isn't easy for me to swallow. But as I learn about all the creative efforts underway I'm becoming really excited about the future. It's little changes like taking full advantage of advertising opportunities that will keep these outlets afloat. Instead of reminiscing about how media used to work we need to start getting creative in crafting future models. This is one good example of that effort. Thank you to your editorial team for getting proactive with this. And thank you for involving your readers. That's how it has to happen.
#7 Posted by greatful reader, CJR on Sat 18 Apr 2009 at 06:14 PM
Online ads:
I don't see them. I use Firefox with Adblock Plus, and the Customize Google add-on that removes ads from all Google sites. I also disable pop-ups.
The idea of targeted ads truly creeps me out.
#8 Posted by Notker, CJR on Sun 19 Apr 2009 at 11:05 AM
I can't think of one time that I saw an ad on line and said to myself, "O darn, I should look into getting a quote from Southeast Screw You insurance, because they are so darn personal in their approach!" If the internet journal whoever is selling through a cyber ad they lost me. Just don't even see them. Tuned out. McAfeed out. Selective periferal. If I want another degree in underwater basket weaving or an mba in albanian economics................I'll actually be underwater in Albania.
#9 Posted by paul, CJR on Sun 19 Apr 2009 at 11:10 PM