Keeping Content Free on the Web: Mini Essay on Ideal Advertising

I don’t have the space I’d like to fully explore the idea of this here, but I wanted to get it out there in some format, because I think its worth considering, critically in terms of both social sustainability, and business sustainability. Examples are all hypothetical, but you will get the picture.

There should be a cultural movement to click on online ads. It sounds ridiculous, but it makes more sense than ignoring them.

There is this panic in media, especially news media, as it moves online and the marketing model shifts, and its all based around monetization. You can’t monetize what you can’t substantiate in the advertising world, and here online that means clicks, page views, time spent on a page, Twitter followers, and Google hits. Just look at the response to the Times putting up a paywall; beyond whether or not it will ‘work’, it completely contradicts the beauty of the internet (easy sharing and access) and also encourages other outlets to do the same (scary, but unlikely or it will cause a drastic shift in media consumption, providers, and information flow as we know it online).

Organisations Require Money to Keep Producing Good Content

Advertising and monetization of media has always been a bit arbitrary in its cost structure- how many people might see an ad in a mag just because they purchased it its assumed they landed on particular pages, driving past a billboard equates likelihood of noticing it, etc. These “views”  are usually called “Gross Rating Points”. They are powered by reach and frequency– the more people who see your ads more often are most likely to buy into it, so the logic goes. There is a lot more social psychology behind this, far more sophisticated and statistically tested, but the important equation in monetizing is the more who see it/interact with it, the more the owner of that magazine/billboard/TV channel can charge for it.

All at once, the internet presented a beautiful world to both content producers (bloggers or corporate) and advertisers: seemingly endless exposure and access. What seemed more attractive to advertisers was the insane idea of more precise analytic behind advertising– unlike the times you flip past a magazine page, webpage interaction can be measured, in some way.

It turns out, this is juxtaposing to our democratic agenda of information sharing and notions of universal access: fancy social tools like Facebook or information wikis like Wikipedia require money to run, as does the New York Times or even your beloved Huff Po. Good content requires research, structure, resources; and while people can ‘donate’ some time toward things like editing through wikis, we can’t expect the same high-level journalism once highly sought after without… a monetization structure to support it. Clay Shirky mades a good point in his lectures at the LSE that actually some of the best online resources come out of crowd sourcing and free time put into projects like Wikipedia which reduce costs, but the social thinking it would require to do this large scale, and replace things such as news media and journalism, is far off and possibly not even realistic. Until then we have to pay those who should be skilled (not necessarily in the professional sense but in their ability to deliver) journalists, designers, and information architects to keep put consumable content online. Sure, some of it is ridiculous hyper-commodification of ‘news’, but really, it applies to even the most basic quality content.

Advertising is a necessary evil. Having studied advertising and media for some time and worked both in corporate and NGO settings (my allegiance lies with the latter), it is not only a fundamental part of every major economic system in the world, it… it works. Or it could. And it could certainly work better.  Advertising keeps content ‘free’. If you aren’t willing to pay for an online subscription to the NYtimes or Hulu or anything else, but you do not want to have to pursue other outlets, your payment is exposure to advertising. If this is the case at least for the time being, why not engage with it instead of accepting it passively.

Advertising should be participatory.

The best advertisers are those who understand targeting: the majority of people who see their promotions are people who want to or would be interested. Poor targeting and overly attention seeking ads [novelty beer ads, singles ads, flashing free computer offers] exist because 1) websites sometimes have to take any advertiser they can get, and can’t be concerned about the appropriateness for their audience 2) Advertisers are constantly trying to reinvent their approach, sure that now we’re used to seeing banner ads we can more easily ignore them 3) They think kitschy and memorable for any reason is ‘branding’; while in essence that is not true, it does get a response, even if its not the best one or a long-lasting one 4) Relating to 3, online advertising is all about hits, that’s how they are charged . Of course there are other factors in this dynamic, but these are certainly issues both parties face.

The key to advertising earning its cultural weight is in its ability to target. Imagine if everything you wanted, whether only nature-friendly organic products or the highest quality cleaners or cars-built-for-safety-not-luxury were… reflected in the ads you saw. They were reflected in the media you see. It would be and is a process, but participating actively would speed it along.

Clicking on ads of Evil Corporations or Advertisers You hate, or Have no Interest In.

I’ve told a few friends about my thoughts on this, particularly those who are very anti-corporate 0r see advertising as a synonym for ‘brainwashing’ or ‘selling me things I don’t need’. Right, so, there are all those companies out there that sell horrible products for society, or, sell what we see as staple goods for now (At&T, BP) but are awful. Often the former comes up on smaller websites just trying to sell advertising to keep afloat, so they advertise “Snuggies”, and the latter on major media sites like the Guardian.co.uk who have what big corporations want: millions of site hits a day; only big corporations can afford those ad spots. The type of targeting they provide sometimes doesn’t apply to smaller advertisers, and would take too much logistics and management (read: more expensive on the personnel side of the website) to make it worth catering to those advertisers. Unless it was a niche audience, where the advertisers are by nature smaller and the website readers are more prone to clicking.

However! What happens when you click on a BP advert on The Guardian website? Depending on the website’s click marketing structure, they pay for it (pay per click). Or, they pay for CPM’s, which is cost per thousand impressions. Every time you click on the Paid Search Result on the top of Google, that company is paying for it. Yes, evil/bad corporation X pays ever single time; yet still I know they are not getting my business. By being conscious and active in looking at advertising when possible (because lets be real, it isnt all the time), there is a very small chance that no matter how amazingly well written and aesthetically pleasing that company’s website is, that you would change your opinion. In my imaginary ideal world of clicking, these corporations are paying extreme amounts of money that will never convert to sales. #win.

How clicking Translates…stay with me here…

Even with the ads you genuinely are not familiar with, or those companies you are not fervently opinionated on, the idea of being active in advertising still has an impact. Aside from what this is really about, which is being an educated active consumer citizen which means being more media and product literate as a society (ideally speaking), it is a cycle that helps us both 1) keep content free and 2) better quality advertising. The process is something like this: X company buys online advertising with Z website being told they will get N amount of viewers exposed to their message — the bigger (corporate news) or more niche (classic cars) the website, the more they can charge >> X company tracks their campaigns through conversion rates: Did this increase traffic on our website, and if so, by how much? How long did each person stay on our website? Did they click around? Did they buy anything (or if you can’t buy online, such as with BP, they look at general sales over a quarter OR brand equity).

Now imagine you are X company, you spent $$$$$ on advertising, had a MASSIVE jump in people viewing your website, but you have nothing to show for it offline. No sales, no good press, no change in consumer mood towards your brand. What do you do? Initially, you change your advertising strategy– either better messaging, OR, a better outlet (maybe Guardian readers really arent a part of BP’s best market). This urges better targeted advertising, as well as simply innovation in advertising; it forces companies to be more intentioned in their advertising–  which they should be prior, but, forces them to rethink it. After numerous failed campaigns or negative feedback, it can also encourage a complete change in business plan; ie Ford deciding to make more hybrids because the other stock isn’t selling.

Huff Po's Green page with ads for home insurance and credit cards.

Best case scenario, this big media website learns that BP, Virgin, or the Gap just does not appeal to their readers, through this process [since they are charging by 'views' instead of clicks, not clicking is not an inaction or your personal boycott when it comes to this advertising model]. It urges the website to seek out better advertisers for their readers- because they want advertisements that actually appeal to readers, otherwise they won’t keep their advertisers, and will lose money.

Sure, you can keep not clicking and ignoring ads. And you’ll keep getting the same advertising. The advertising you hate or doesn’t apply to you.

So.

Okay. Its a long term process. Its my dream of a social and consumer awareness for those of us living a market and advertising culture. Its my dream that we all try to be more media literate and aware of where information and alliances come from and how money influences the way information is produced. And, as competition becomes even more cut throat with lower barriers to entry with the internet, and consumer having more and more power, there is no reason we shouldn’t wield it; companies should earn us as consumers. For me that might mean being ethical and concerned for the customer, others that might mean being trustworthy quality.

And best of all, it would keep most content free. Or this is what I’m hoping for.

Advertisement