I think it will shift more to pull marketing.

The old days of advertising were push days - and very intrusive! Telemarketers calling your house. Forced to watch commercials.

Now, in these times of do-not-call lists and fast-forwarding your DVR through commercials, advertisers have to find other ways to get their products out there. And customers are liking this new world of not being bothered my intrusive advertising.

That’s why I think PPC works so well (Google AdWords, Yahoo! Search Marketing, etc). The customer sees the advertisements when they are looking for that specific information. And advertisers only have to pay when an already vetted (interested) customer engages their ad.

Pat-

Pure silliness. Advertisers don’t impact the content here. If you’d like to buy a spot, feel free to contact me. Otherwise, enjoy the free content and stay on topic.

Sam

Pat-

ReveNews is not a regulatory body. While we do have standards for the type of advertising partners we accept, I’m not going to turn away partners based on the dissatisfaction of some readers with that service or program.

Yes, we do make all of our money on advertising revenues and sponsorships. However, I think we’ve done a great job of not pushing ads all over the site as some people have suggested we do to make up the tremendous amount it takes to host the content here (most of which has come out of my own pocket in the last six months).

I’ve been very selective in the amount and types of advertising we’ve taken and display out of respect for the readers here. I’ve had no problem in dealing with the advertisers here in the past, and I have no problem having them as advertising partners on the site (and I suspect most of the readers here feel the same).

You might not like Clickbooth, but at least they’ve ponied up to help pay for the content here. I would hope more people would follow their example, especially if they are avid readers.

“I think we’ve done a great job of not pushing ads all over the site as some people have suggested we do to make up the tremendous amount it takes to host the content here (most of which has come out of my own pocket in the last six months).”

I agree, you’ve done a very excellent job running this site… not only with the plainly obvious high level of content, deep and varied intellects here to report and discuss it, excellent format, freshness, willingness to allow posts on many sides of issues… but also with a very good balance and presentation of relevant advertising that is on display! I’m busy and picky, yet I visit here nearly every day to see what’s clicking in our industry. My comment above re: CB is a criticism, but it is certainly not meant as something more than a single negative point, among many positives that have gone unsaid (because they were off topic).

Ethics in advertising is a coming / growing trend, in my opinion, and understanding who your ad partners are and how they impact the industry is something more people are growing to expect. I understand your very valid point about not being a regulatory body, but please don’t exaggerate what I stated - you need not regulate or police or even aid those that do police what they choose to do. But just as you wouldn’t allow tangible products to be advertised here that are harmful to your audience, you do have standards at some level regarding the professional behavior of your ad partners.

So we may reasonably disagree on where you choose to set your bar, after all, it’s your site and you do get to choose it’s height, not me. But there is a bar. And denying that, is the only thing “silly” that’s transpired here.

“I don’t see ReveNews crossing that line at all.”

Many people don’t “see” it, because many believe CB is a legit marketing player - it’s certainly what CB hopes to be viewed as. Their advertising here is part of that strategy. If you care to “see” more Jim, then do yourself a little research.

I’m not suggesting that every prospective advertiser be given the third degree, who has the time for that - it’s a fast paced industry. But if your readership suggests there’s a fox in the hen house, sometimes it’s worth asking around. And the main players (owners and contributing editors) here at Revenews have ready access to minds like Kellie Stevens and Wayne Porter and can learn very quickly if someone doesn’t pass the sniff test.

The larger point though, isn’t CB, but the on-topic discussion of ethics in advertising. It’s not yet as important as relevance and specificity, but I see it has been playing a larger role as time passes. Experts, gurus, pundits, leaders, etc shouldn’t be embarassed by the wolf in sheep’s clothing that slips by every now and then - there are simply too many of them to know who they all are. But if it’s brought to their attention, I think it’s worth a few minutes of due diligence. If you’re told and don’t bother to check, that’s when there’s the chance that a site owner can be professionally embarassed. While not a regulatory body by any means, this is an information source - people assume there’s some degree of vetting here - and I’m sure there is. So dig a little and let me know if you “see” anything then.

If I’m wrong about this case Jim, you just let me know… no proof required, just say that you checked enough to know that you’re fairly confident that their goals and behavior aren’t inconsistent with your own professional ethics… and I’ll make a $100 donation to the American Cancer Society on behalf of Jim Kukral, or Revenews or anonymously, whichever you prefer. We’ll make something good come from this discussion.

“just say that you checked enough to know that you’re fairly confident that their goals and behavior aren’t inconsistent with your own professional ethics”

American Cancer Society.
Donation Type: Honorary
Name: Jim Kukral
Donation Amount: 1 donation of $100.00