Posts
I noticed recently that Peter Sobol has started using Adsense, Google's ad-serving thingy for Blogger, on his entirely admirable blog for MG school issues. The program automatically places context-sensitive ads on your blog and you get some money. The blog's author does not choose the ads, so that a blog's content should not be warped behind the scenes.
I have toyed with using this program, but never activated it. I have no idea how much money one might make. The blogger loses control over the blog to some extent. For example, it is likely that ads will appear that support viewpoints diametrically opposed to one's own views.
Thoughts? Should I or shouldn't I?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think making money (no matter how small) when serving as a public servant is unethical and immoral and probably breaks some type of law.
ReplyDeleteI argue that your blog and pete's blog are extension of your role as a public servant.
HP
Doug - it's based on traffic, and judging by the posts/responses here I'd bet you could get a nice shiny nickel every 6 months. You can also determine where you want the ads to go, to a certain extent, so you might not have to worry about the blog being overrun.
ReplyDeleteHope you feel better, was wondering why this place was so quiet... Thought it might just be everyone was exhausted after the last City Council meeting.
One of the biggest turn-offs for ANY blog is the appearance of ads. I have followed a number of blogs over the years and as soon as ads start appearing, I start disappearing. You have a good, very informative device for communication here that provides insights for those of us "not on the inside" since the City of Monona in general does a HORRIBLE job communicating the city's business to the residents. B ut by bringing in ads (and the potential loss of control of the blog), I would certainly not come around anywhere near as often as I do.
ReplyDeleteFred Hyde
Good points, Fred and Travis (although when I post regularly there more visitors than you might think - according to Google Analytics - the vast majority are readers, but not commenters.
ReplyDeleteHP, you laid an egg. A highly annoying egg. A very foul egg. It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm not amused.
Of course it would not break any law for me to take ad revenue for running this blog. What law would it break? I can't use the power of city government to coerce people and make them read the blog.
And how exactly would it be unethical? (Or 'is' in Peter's case)? Explain, please.
"HP, you laid an egg. A highly annoying egg. A very foul egg. It may sound like I'm joking, but I'm not amused.
ReplyDeleteOf course it would not break any law for me to take ad revenue for running this blog. What law would it break? I can't use the power of city government to coerce people and make them read the blog.
"
I would not be amused either, but I was not joking. Sometimes things that irritate make us think hard. The world does not poop rainbows, but you know that one.
OK, OK-I get your point
There are two problems with this-1. You would be benefiting fiscally from your position as city council person, right? We can not deny that fact. You are already being reimbursed by the city for your duties, right?
How does that look to the common man? Why not take money to hold listening sessions at Tullys-no one woudl be forced to attend?
It is very similar and you are opening yourself up to some legitimate tough questions.
OK, I do not know if it is illegal,but it sure does not meet the spirit of Progressive politics. WJB, Teddy, and Ickes would not be proud:
"to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day"
Progressive Party Platform 1912 or so.
You might win the approval of the Kingfish.
Second, I think it is unethical-you do have the bully pulpit and what you say and surround yourself with-people listen to and think about. Over the last few years, you have had people talking about global warming, chickens and partner benefits in Monona. Do you want them talking about the ad that was on your site-they will?
So-a common man goes over to Peter's blog and sees information about: private high schools (of a questionable nature-imno), test prep and colleges (of a questionable nature). Is Peter endorsing those places or entities? I know he is not...but take the common man or working man. She/he comes home and sees these ads...well it is on the school board members site and then spends some hard earned green backs with one of these companies....when the service was already available in the district for free. That example already exists with some of those ads.
This will happen...imho.
The company benefits, the blogger benefits and the common man has been shook down-again.
I found this to be unethical.
I guess-I would rather not be a party to that kinda of business transaction OR put myself in the position to have my motives questioned...but then it is your blog and only my opinion.
take care
HP
PS What type of candy are you handing out at Halloween?
"The power of trusts and corporations has become an intolerable tyranny; the encroachments of the landgrabbers have almost exhausted the public domain"
I can see where HP is coming from. While not illegal, ads are a bit of a conflict of interest. Perhaps you discover that certain topics (chickens anyone?) generate a lot more traffic and therefore, more ad revenue. It that going to influence you to write more about that topic?
ReplyDeleteDon't take it personally. Perhaps you are above that type of influence. This is a valid concern for anyone in office though.
"Perhaps you discover that certain topics (chickens anyone?) generate a lot more traffic and therefore, more ad revenue. It that going to influence you to write more about that topic?"
ReplyDeleteI'm nonplussed. Almost. Writing about a topic because more people want to read about it? Wouldn't that be a service to my readers? How would that be a 'conflict of interest'?
HP: "The world does not poop rainbows, but you know that one."
ReplyDeleteMD: No, sorry, can't say that I know anything about the bathroom habits of rainbows. Seems rather off-topic.
HP: "You would be benefiting fiscally from your position as city council person, right? We can not deny that fact."
MD: Wrong again. I do deny it (and who is 'we'?). If I made money from writing this blog it would be because of the work I put into writing about topics of interest to the readers.
HP: Paraphrasing: The 'common man' will be ripped off because they see an ad on an elected official's blog.
MD: So, it's the old "the masses are asses" argument? Yeah, that would make your Progressive heroes proud.
HP goes on to compare allowing ads on one's blog to be equivalent to the "unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics".
MD: The 1912 Progressive Party platform was talking about the power of the trusts and monopolies like Standard Oil, US Steel, the Sugar Trust and so forth to buy and control politicians.
To compare the power of the Trusts to a blogger allowing an Internet company to place context-sensitive ads over which the blogger exercises no control is just silliness.
I mean, these are good quotes from the old time Progressives, so respect them, don't abuse them.
HP: "PS What type of candy are you handing out at Halloween?"
MD: You would be well-advised not to take any of my candy.
Unethical? Is it ethical to *anonymously* make such charges as you have done here? Maybe you have an axe to grind or your own conflict of interest. Who knows?
(And yes, it was my error for publishing your first comment in this post. I should have been be more careful in allowing such loose talk.)
Anyway, I do not plan to place the ads mainly because they don't pay beans, are ugly, and would probably sell 'global warming is a hoax' books.
Travis, you were WAY off with your estimate. Based on my research, I would probably make a hundred times more than you guessed.
I do not have an agenda, if I had an agenda on this one...I could have said GREAT IDEA and encouraged you to do it.
ReplyDeleteI am very aware what those quotes were talking about. IMHO, the Progressive fight was also about the common man vs. the political machines working with businesses of the era who were hurting the working class.
You asked, I said-it would be unethical....Why did you ask in the first place?
HP