Why Are Ads So Hated?

Ash sent me a link to his theoretical valuation of Wikipedia and I forwarded it to Jason who then wrote this post suggesting that Wikipedia run one leaderboard per page and give all the money it generates to charity.

I run ads on this blog so I can give the money to charity. It will be about $30,000 this year. That's money that would not otherwise go to charity. I think its a good thing and I hate leaving money on the table that could otherwise go to a good cause.

Jason is suggesting the exact same thing for Wikipedia. He thinks one leaderboard could generate $100mm annually. That is a lot of money to be leaving on the table. I like the idea.

But if you read the comments to Jason's post, the disgust is literally dripping off the page. It seems that there are a lot of people who hate ads (or hate Jason or both).

I just don't get that. Ads are content just like everything else. Good ones that are relevant (and wikipedia being a search/keyword driven site could target the ads so easily) and attractive are additive in my opinion. But clearly not everyone feels that way.

Comments

[Jeff G.]

Several points to consider:

Pinpoint targeting may be the exact opposite approach to generating advertising response.

To the advertiser, or anyone that has tested reponse, it is often better to be the ad that doesn't have contextual relevance to the content. More people will notice and therefore higher click rates/monetization possibilities.

To those that detest advertising, they shoudl note that commercial speech contains some of the great metaphors for how we live and think. Advertising that appears next to a Wiki or blog could be just as interesting as the content itself. Associations made take the mind to new and interesting places.

[Pete]

Ads are annoying because they are distracting and ugly. The ads that I truly hate are the flash ads.

I am all in favor of bloggers donating their ad $'s to charity, I think that is a great idea.

If Wikipedia could raise $100M to feed starving children, fight disease, and truly make the world a better place, then who could possibly oppose that? How much less effort can you possibly make to do something good? Just sit there and put up with ads, and then $100M goes to charity! God bless!

Pete

[michael]

Checking back in...I noticed dissenters in this thread referred to as Ad Haters in a separate post. How divisively stated. 2 sides. Good/evil. Come on, we know it ain’t that simple. I never knew I was an Ad hater, just a guy paying attention. Pragmatism is cool, but it should not involve dismissal to be achieved. Meaning one can profit from ads and have an open dialogue about their negative power and influence on society.

So I’m gonna poke at a few more comments:

"To those that detest advertising, they should note that commercial speech contains some of the great metaphors for how we live and think. Advertising that appears next to a Wiki or blog could be just as interesting as the content itself. Associations made take the mind to new and interesting places."

"If Wikipedia could raise $100M to feed starving children, fight disease, and truly make the world a better place, then who could possibly oppose that? How much less effort can you possibly make to do something good? Just sit there and put up with ads, and then $100M goes to charity! God bless!"

Both of these pathetic comments make absurd presuppositions like:

1) These "great metaphors" were worth the loss of sovereignty of ideas whenever it did take place. In other words, The energy and thought behind these "great metaphors" arguably should never have been left up to advertisers if we had true leadership of ideas in this commercial venture called civilization. Or put another way, this comment presupposes that the ideas contained in these “great metaphors” would not have come from elsewhere and/or are not tainted through their association to some brand. If the only action these “great metaphors” spur on is consumption are they really "great metaphors" or precisely the kind of persuasion this world needs less of?

2) That this $100 million dollars appears out of some metaphysical ether because wikipedia advertises. Are you kidding me? No really, was that comment tongue in cheek or genuine?

The original question begged a fundamental look at the range of cultural reactions to advertising specifically negative.

Necessary evil? Of course.

Tool for mass manipulation run amok? You better believe it.

Any idiot that thinks more advertising is going to save the world needs to refrain from commenting on the topic. As if increased amounts of societies' resources going towards duping others is going to produce a net gain for poor and ignorant people. Please. Greed and avarice are far more agreeable than fairy tale nonsense like that.

Hey, I am not arging that you can do away with ads, I am arguing that an unflinching look at how drastically television advertising/propaganda has influenced society (which includes all content, not just "advertsisements”. The news advertises wars as surely as Mr. Whipple sells toilet paper) is gut wrenching to anyone whose able to shelve their own source of income and see clearly for a few minutes. For a perfectly relevant illustration of this, take a hard look at the putred nonsense spewing all over the country at this moment that we ritualistically call elections. Ha. Do you want more of that? $2 billion USD on these midterms which are nothing but a charade and an expenditure to reshuffle corporate alliances for another few years of television sanctioned theft we call governemnt. Is that not the "trajectory" of mass influencers as they colonize the net? Is this something we should all gleefully click and spend through without offering superlatively critical feedback? Fuck that.

So ad haters, adbusters or whatever we are called are just people who hope but cynically doubt that advertising on the net will be more ethical than the lies that stream from our television sets and poison our kids. If I am too dramatic you need a few days off from work to look a things from a different angle.

A classic take on it from Network. A good reminder that television as a medium is one gigantic advertisement, and that the internet is a chance to remake a few things we got terribly wrong as we watched it evolve and produce the United States in 2006. Of course we won’t without external pressure in the form of unpleasantness. Guess I'll "hate ads" for a long time to come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM-t-UJxFoE

Michael

[MOTHER SHIRLEY]

As you go to my site, you can see I am independent, i use a lot of my own income for causes I support. I also take used nurse uniforms and scrubs, all go to the local ladies of shelters, due to thier situations are out of clothing etc, for workiing in this field among other areas.

I am not here to beg, although I do take donations. I am here to agree that people that advertise they are looking to give to charities are rare. Much love to you that give in such a way. I have spend income over the years of my own, never major marketing, I assit those incarcerated, regaedless of thier situation, there are some that seek education, outside communications, personals that you have to pay for, and spiritual food. Thank you for reading my comment to you, and keep up the good work, visit my site, there is a mailing address there, also for shipping if you come across uniforms, thank you so much, and Create a Great Day,
Mother Shirley