Web Banners A Failure
from the yeah,-so? dept
The CEO of the Silicon Alley Reporter was quoted at a conference saying that banner ads have been “an absolute, complete, unmitigated failure.”. It seems his main complaint is that we’ve trained people to expect “free” content due to banner ads. I disagree. I still believe that most content would have ended up being free no matter what happened otherwise. The only way to make content worth money is if it’s so special that no one else can get the same content. Otherwise the competitive nature of the world would force the price down to zero as companies try to make money some other way. Admittedly, perhaps banner ads weren’t the best way to make money, but that doesn’t mean they’re to blame for free content. Note, by the way, that Techdirt continues to put up free content and we don’t even have banner ads (but, we’re just crazy).
Comments on “Web Banners A Failure”
FREE??? BAHhh
Well, I like techdirt, a site that I check about 1.5 times a week…..good?
Techdirt is free, why? Easy to maintain…..and well, the content is already out there…..nothing ‘good’ about it to make it worth $$$.
Re: FREE??? BAHhh
1.5 times a week? That’s all? We’re dishing out good content for you each and every weekday… 🙂 Oh well… Your loss. 🙂
I definitely agree with you on the content side. Techdirt was never meant to have anything to do with money. And, it is fairly easy for me to maintain. However, I do notice there are plenty of sites out there that start out like this and die off after a month or two… so apparently it’s not so easy to maintain for everyone.
We also have quite a large and dedicated (though quiet) following so I assume we’re doing something right that brings them brings them back on a regular basis. My guess is that people like the selection of stories that we find… If anyone has a different reason for coming back that would be interesting to know as well… Feel free to post or if you have some fear of speaking in public then email us…
Re: Re: FREE??? BAHhh
Like slashdot, techdirt sifts thru a lot of stuff and only presents interesting news with a skeptical view. Not many sources do that surprisingly.
i support techdirt's skeptical view
If one has read a book called “Guns, Germs and Steel” which talks about how human societies have changed and how the values haven’t at all, it’s wiser to stay skeptical of greed-led follies (look at the Ebay’s P/E of 1xxx!) than overoptimistic…because
when your opinion falls way short of expectations, you will be even more skeptical than the techdirt guy.
But of course, when everyone is too pessimistic, you gotta be optimistic and do something about-pick up Ebay’s stock again (if it’s still present in the market after the coming downturn of the economy…)
No Subject Given
The reason why I like techdirt (actually it’s my start site) is that it filters (or at least it trys to) all important information of the day.
I see a huge market there. People like me don’t have time and resources to filter all daily information by themselves (especially on the web); at the same time I want use the time I have online for info reading for the best information available (and almost ever the best articles cannot be found in one place, but spread around all over among thousands for content providers), so a person or team that reads and analyses all information and then quickly summarizes and evaluates the importance of it with a link is the best way to stay informed and not to rely just on one limited source. It’s like having your assistant scan information sources for you. Of course my interests don’t always match those of techdirt and there is still some information that I need to get by myself, but it gives a good overview on a wide range of daily information. Techdirt’s goal should be to expand this range and to cover and analyze more information source (especially those that are less obvious) – without increasing the number of postings though.
In any case I believe techdirt would be well positioned to be taken to the next stage.