We are of course always trying to improve our economic situation by improving our content, getting the word out, increasing traffic, and selling more ads and doing more Amazon business.
We still operate at a loss, but our situation has improved very steadily over time and I am confident we will reach our goal of solvency. We just added a sponsorship ad today - over there on the left at the top of the page - for a blog by a porn publisher: "Diary of a Porn Publisher."
Since the ad clearly states that the site is for adults only and is not work-safe, and is about the workings of the biz - even saying "Why Am I Not Having More Fun?" - I don't have a problem with the message of the ad.
But the image itself gave me pause and I have heard from several writers and readers who are concerned that the picture on the ad might get Blogcritics banned from their work, wich would directly impact our traffic, and therefore our ability to deliver traffic. The picture doesn't include explicit nudity, but it's about as close as you can get.
What are your thoughts on the ad? The picture? I am very interested in any thoughts on this ad, the boundaries of what you consider to be acceptable advertising, your web surfing habits at work (anonymous is fine), or anything related.
I can't really pick and choose what ads we get other than to flat out reject a given ad, which obviously, I would rather not do. Thanks for your input.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Allah
Allah had the same ad submitted to his glorious blog yesterday and he rejected it. The respect accorded him would perhaps be undermined by an image on his frontpage of a nude woman grabbing a man's dick, yes?
Does this mean it's now okay to drop the F-bomb when posting to BC?
2 - Bill O'Reilly
Yet another example of how the secularists are ruining our country--and our blogosphere. Where is the ChristianBlogcritics.org to counter this trend? Tonight on The Factor we'll interview some religious blogcritics who are speaking out.
3 - Eric Olsen
Hmm, I hadn't even noticed the crotch-grabbing aspect, certainly a key point.
No word in and of itself has ever been forbidden - it's all about the context, Big Guy.
4 - Shark
Eric: "Hmm, I hadn't even noticed the crotch-grabbing aspect..."
And where WERE YOU LOOKING?
Anyway, it's a tough call, Eric. One has to accept advertising, and on some level, it's ALL Satan's handiwork, so selling one book is no less a sin than selling another.
But then again, it does open the flood gates to future porno ads, and it could diminish the legitimacy of the site in quite a few minds. It is the first thing one sees when the site loads, and first impressions are Important.
What's your gut feeling?
I like gut feelings.
Mine is: Just Say No.
(I'd like to hear Hal P's take: he's an old marketing guy too)
5 - Mac Diva
Just saw it. It is disgusting. Another step toward the toilet for Blogcritics. But, hey, it is pretty much there anyway.
6 - Bee
Another bite at the hand that sends you traffic.
I do, however, find the ad offensive.
7 - Craig Lyndall
Despite Mac's potshots, I agree that it is inappropriate for the site. I am not a real conservative person and normally, I wouldn't care. This site hasn't ever had any photos (other than Ms. Jackson) that would get me into trouble, and as of yet, BlogCritics hasn't been banned from work. But a graphic like this makes it very risky for me to visit because I could be held responsible for what is on my screen if someone were to look over my shoulder. The ad message is fine if the picture was toned down.
8 - Phillip Winn
Eric, sorry I missed your call - I was at lunch. You're right, though, you can guess my response. :-)
Please lose it! I'll cut you a check for a little bit of money myself to see it go away.
9 - Allah
Allah notes that there is now a very interesting post at the offending website entitled "Upskirt Pussy on the Loft." Allah will be sure to check it out.
10 - Joe
While it does make me feel engorged and tingly, I don't think I would have it on my own site if I did blogads.
11 - Phillip Winn
I agree with Craig, above. The ad copy isn't nearly as bothersome as the image itself.
12 - Al Barger
The picture really has to go. It immediately relegates the entire site to the negative social status of a porn site. Makes the place look sleazy. Even the liberals are basically telling you this. To me, the text is a bit much, but would be ok without the picture.
Plus, it's doubly inappropriate for writing about anything decent. It's just plain YUCKY to have to see that stuff when trying to read about something of a spiritual nature, for example any of our 50+ articles on The Passion.
As to the Diva's invocation of the toilet, she personally accounts for the lion's share of the stank in the atmosphere. Refraining from maliciousness and libel would go a long ways towards improving the smell.
13 - Craig Lyndall
By the way, as a member who is willing to put his money where his mouth is, I would be willing to contribute a little extra cash (like Philip said) to make up for the loss of the ad for one month until you can hopefully replace the revenue.
14 - Eric Olsen
Okay, all of this is along the lines of my personal thoughts on the matter and if I can't get the pic modified we'll just take it down.
15 - duane
The polls have closed it would seem, but as for the picture, I'm agin it, for what it's worth.
16 - CW Fisher
I LOVE IT! DON'T TOUCH IT! PLEASE DON'T TAKE IT DOWN!! IT'S -- IT'S-- Oh, yessss.
Okay, now you can take it down. I'll send $3.95 -- but NO MORE.
Curt
17 - Hal Pawluk
Too sleazy for me - dump it.
18 - Phillip Winn
<hack, hack, hack> Okay, until we can get in touch with all of the appropriate people, I've hacked out the picture and left everything else alone. Hopefully, the sponsor will supply an alternate image.
19 - mike
I liked it.
20 - Chris Kent
There's something about a woman's thonged ass dangling next to every word on the left-hand side of a blog. You forget its there briefly, and then *BOINK*, there it is making an encore appearance......
What was I reading again?
21 - Al Barger
Perhaps we should all click through on the new, non-picture ad- strictly as a show of support for our advertiser, of course.
22 - Jim Carruthers
Wow, that is some lame ass porn. We want better pr0n. Y'know quality gentlemen's magazine type of stuff with sove and de-boner stuff 'n' shit.
23 - Jim Carruthers
Of course since Plain Brown Wrapper died the death with lack of interest, I guess you people just aren't the media metric which Russ Meyer targeted with "Beneath The Valley of the Ultravixens".
24 - sheri
I didnt find it so much offensive, as just not appropriate. Even though some here may need a lil stress release. j/k
25 - Eric Olsen
Jim, not dead, just in suspended animation. We will have some new things to talk about in that regard shortly. Email me if you have a chance.