A web design and development community for people with a thirst for knowledge. Follow the Community on Twitter right here.
I'm not sure when it occurred or why it happened, but somewhere along the way I started to look at every ad on the web that I came across. I became fascinated by these banners no matter their size. I was left in wonderment as to why anyone would plaster so many ads on a site knowing they have to be distracting to their audience. Actually, that is a lie, it is obvious why sites do it and it is because people pay them to. A better question is why does there have to be so many?
Couldn't you simply have less ads and sell them at a higher rate? It seems to work really for The Deck and Fusion Ads. I guess the problem is most advertisers don't want to pay a premium to be placed on your website so you lower the price and to make up for the money you think you are losing you put more ads up believing it doesn't hurt anyone. In the short term you are probably right, but eventually your ad placing habits will become an addiction and your readers will start to notice.
If you can keep on producing content they enjoy they might not mind them, TechCrunch is a great example, but everyone has a breaking point and most of the time you won't notice what the breaking point of your audience is because you are too busy counting the dollars. Sooner or later though you will notice them leaving and when they leave, the ad dollars start to go with them. I mean, do you really need to squeeze out another dollar? If you think you do then shouldn't you be focused on other ways to make money with the audience you have worked so hard to gain?
You do realize that there is only so much money to go around right? Of course you do and that is why you make sure to sell your ad space at a very low price. The other day I came across a website that was selling six ad spaces for $10 a piece. One space was bought so there were five empty spaces sitting on this poor site. Not only was the person selling at a price that seemed useless, but instead of actually looking at the site I couldn't stop looking at the blank ad spaces.
Isn't it safe to assume that the ad market is always saturated to the point of explosion? You really think that when you start to build up your site that advertisers are going to come knocking down your door? They already have the traffic they want and probably aren't even happy with the conversion rate they are getting.
What's that? You thought when businesses spend money on advertising they are always happy with the results? You are so silly. Most companies are happy if they get a 1% click through rate on their ads and they are lucky to get that on a site that features 28 of their competitors. Not only do you have to keep your audience happy, but you also have to keep the advertisers happy. They want to be in front of your audience, but what good does it do them if nobody clicks? They know they are getting horrible results, but continue to advertise with you because their competition does.
What if one day a site came along that reached the same audience as you and could promise a better click through rate? You don't think an advertiser would love to jump at an opportunity like that? They could leave their competitors to fight for scraps on your site while they get primetime real estate on another site. Don't worry though, this scenario will never happen to you because you have been rolling 4-5 digits deep every month for a very long time.
You might have started a website because you wanted to reach people. Maybe you had other reasons, but know that over time your audience will become aware of what your true intentions are (look at the advertising models of Digg vs. Reddit). If you are simply there to make money, both your content and design will reflect that and people will catch on. Eventually, it gets to the point where you become a dinosaur in your own industry. A graveyard site that people only refer to when they talk about the glory days.
It doesn't have to end up like that. If you truly care about your audience and you want to stick to the initial goals you had when you started the website then you have to get creative. Keep in mind that more isn't always more. 37signals proves that with their products as well as Apple.
Maybe you could produce an e-book every 6 months or year with all the great content you have produced. Smashing Magazine wrote a paperback book and although I don't know how many they have sold you almost have to assume it is a lot. You could create a premium section of your site for people to subscribe to. Maybe your site does a great job of producing leads for your design business and if that is the case try not to get greedy. It is hard for potential customers to understand if you are just writing a blog with advertisements or if you actually do provide design services.
I understand the need to have advertising on a site so this isn't a blast against sites that make top dollar with advertising. This is a plea asking them to take a step back and look at their sites to see if advertising has become the dominant content on their site. Have you ever tried to read an issue of GQ? It's impossible because every other page is an ad. Some sites can get away with this and there is a good chance that yours isn't one of them.
I might be the naive one though when it comes to ads. I know savvy users can use an add-on such as Ad-Block Plus to prevent showing any ads on a page, but I like to think that there is a compromise that makes all parties (advertisers, site owners, audience) happy. Is it wrong to assume you could charge more by putting up less ads? As an advertiser what is the breaking point when you say enough is enough and avoid a site because there are too many ads?
If you think I went a bit overboard with how may ads are on this page, haven't you visited a site before and felt just as overwhelmed? I won't even get into the fact that the majority of ads are poorly designed and offer me no incentive to click. If you are going to be one ad in a million at least do your best to lure potential customers in. Having an ad up just because you know you should market your product defeats the whole purpose of marketing.
Enough talk though, I am going to try something different. I am going to put an ad up on this site starting in 2010. It will be just one ad space for the whole year. No other ads will be shown. However, having the same ad every single day doesn't help an advertiser because people start to tune it out and I would get annoyed myself seeing the same ad continuously. So the ad will be a different ad every single day. Instead of buying the space for a month you can buy it for a day.
To avoid having to worry about pricing, the rate of the ad will increase with the growth of the site. $1 is added to the rate every day so January 1 will be $1 and December 31 will be $365. You could be front and center of the Drawar commuity for $1. I don't plan on selling out every day of the year so to help others in the industry I will fill those empty days with an ad for a site, person or charity I admire.
I have nothing against sites like BuySellAds that put money in the pockets of great sites. I wish they were around 6 years ago. I just have a bad habit of thinking there is more than one way to do something so this will be my way. For an industry full of creatives there doesn't seem to be too much creativity going around, we can fix that together.
Interested in purchasing an ad space on Drawar? Check out the Advertise page for details.
This article was a bit different than what you usually see right? That is what Drawar is all about. It's not about being different, it's about helping all of us dig deeper into what web design really represents. It thrives off its members contributions so if you like what you see consider becoming a Plus Member or Drawar Friend.
Brilliant article, I must say that the thoughts are pretty articulate! However cannot help but notice that the idea is pretty similar to the idea of a guy who wears a Tshirt each day for money. Read it some place on the web and the revenue model works just like you. Last heard the guy has hired a helper so that both of them can wear Tshirts. The Tshirt appearance now cost $2 on the first day and go on to $730 (I am hoping that is $365 x 2). So Good luck with the idea. Do let us know via your blog if the experiment was successful!
Good idea, Srivs. Hopefully you can prove something along the way and are able to earn a few bucks to boot.
You bring up an interesting point regarding whether how effective Web site ads really are. To be honest, about the only ads I have ever clicked on were the ones sponsored by either The Deck or Fusion ads. I think these ads are a bit more targeted than the ones found on Smashing Magazine or other design blogs.
The less ads on a site the more powerful each ad becomes. I would love to see Smashing Magazine trim down the amount of ads on their site. I can almost guarantee I would click on their ads more than I do now.
I love the idea of both The Deck and Fusion ads, but they are an invite-only services. Granted the theory holds that if you do great work and produce great content you *should* get invited to either service (or one similar).
Good luck with the experiment.
The content on sites such as Smashing Magazine has become obfuscated to the point of absurdity. I recently stumbled onto their site to read an article on CSS3, but almost left because the page finished loading because I thought I had landed on some spammers site: http://web8.twitpic.com/img/50019710-cf5819a4e800889fee23ca275772f308.4b2943b1-scaled.jpg
Find the content, win a prize I suppose.
@drawar I have to admit I love the style of your articles, they are quite sexy
Well I had a ton more ads in different sizes, but then the page was getting a bit out of control.
@Inspiring Pixel: Indeed, my idea is not original, but I would like to see how I can put a bit of variation on it.
@procload: You could always start your own private network.
@Scott: Have another link for your screenshot? I might be inputting it wrong, but nothing is showing up.
This is something we really don't talk about enough.
I actually have an issue of GQ sitting around, and there's a couple big differences between its ad clutter and most online ad clutter.
- It has full page ads. They're well designed. At they're best, they're an art form. Online, we use little boxes, or worse, Flash.
- Even reputable publishers will play games to drum up page views or otherwise manipulate audience metrics. In print and television advertising, there are standard, correct ways to measure exposure. We don't quite have that on the web.
With this in mind, it's no wonder that online ads are perceived as being worth very little. Clutter is the easiest of our problems, but my guess is its barely scratching the surface of them.
I'm going to go ahead and name names - is that cool? Hope so. Web Design Ledger, I'm looking at you. Holy effing hell do they have a lot of ads. It's to the point of me not visiting the site anymore unless I follow a shortened URL from Twitter and happen to end up there.
@Jason: Indeed GQ seems to go about it in the best designed way possible, but with there being so many I still feel like I am reading an ad magazine that just so happens to have an article in between somewhere. I can remember what ads I saw in the last GQ better than I can remember what I read.
They should just do an issue with absolutely no content and see if people even notice.
@Nicole: Not sure what you are talking about, I only counted 16 ads on the home page of Web Design Ledger.
You nailed the multi-column layout on this article. Best use of the technique I've ever seen on the web.
I noticed Smashing Magazine's plethora of ads on their redesigned page too. It is insane, but I'm sure they are making bank off of it. They are the same ads I see on all those kind of sites (PSD to HTML/CSS $150) so I end up completely ignoring them on the rare occasion I visit the site.
My rough calculations put the actual content on a Smashing Mag article page at 11% of the screen. That's an incredibly low number for a business based on producing content. I think they will reach a breaking point soon if they don't change their ads to make it a little more user friendly.
Also, I love the idea about a different ad each day. It will keep things interesting and hopefully tie into products I would actually use, like the Deck and Fusion.
@Kevin,
According to AWayBack's calculation, the ad space takes up 32.62% of the screen which is the highest of all the other type of content on the screen including the main blog posts which takes 30.62% of the screen.
Check this article: http://www.awayback.com/smashing-magazine-realigned/
Well, it's not that simple. Many of the sites that have advertisements are dependent on them, no matter matter if they earn 10 bucks or 10.000 bucks. No one can ill afford to loose a single of them. That`s the reality. Ads are the everyday bread to feed the employees.
Maybe it is a good idea for Smashing Magazine to implement subscription based access. Like PSDtuts for example - http://tutsplus.com/plus-program/psd-plus/
Sorry about the broken screenshot link, thanks to Tyme for digging it out. While I understand that monitors are getting bigger and screen resolutions are capable of showing more content in a small space, this site is a 100% failure in the old "standard" resolution of 1024x768. At that size, only the headline of the article is viewable in between the maze of ads.
@edge: It sounds simple enough to me, aren't these sites the ones responsible for making themselves dependent on the ads? It's not as if they were made with the ads. They can't take some away and charge more?
@Haris,
AWayBack's calcuation is right for the home page, but the 11% I got was for the individual article page. When you click on a headline to go read an article, you will see a headline and (if you're lucky) one or two sentences of the introduction. The rest is ads, whitespace (somewhat necessary), and huge navigation buttons (also somewhat necessary). As a comparison, the ad space on each article page takes up 35% of the screen, outnumbering the content 3 to 1.
@edge07,
I agree with you that ads are necessary to some business, but I took Scrivs point to be that you don't need that many advertisements to make a buck. Using the Deck and Fusion as a model, he's going to put up one tiny, unobtrusive ad a day. It will change daily, keeping things fresh, and also earn him a pretty penny. Paying $365 at most for an ad that will likely make a huge impression on the site's visitors will earn him about $66,612 dollars (depending on how many slots he leaves open).
Scrivs makes an excellent point that advertising is always a bubble ready to burst. If you have more ads, you can theoretically make more money in the short run, but each ad will become less and less effective as you increase the number of ads. Advertisers will be willing to pay less for the ad space, so you end up right back at where you started money wise, but you're stuck with an exponentially bigger ad space on your site. This distracts from your content which is why your readers are there in the first place.
In most cases it comes down to simple supply and demand. When you start to increase the supply (the number of ad slots) the demand starts to go down and therefore the price does as well once you are saturated. I know it can be a hard concept to process, but not every company that offers to buy a space should be given a space. Tell them to wait till one opens up and they will value that space even more.
Just to name and shame as I was completely astonished by how over board this website took adverts.
http://blogof.francescomugnai.com/
And he's charging pretty large sums of money to become part of a large mob of advertisers.
When people take it to this level it's ridiculous, a nice simple single advert however is brilliant http://www.idsgn.org/ is a great example of this.
Inspiring Pixel is referring to http://iwearyourshirt.com/ which was the first thing I thought of too.
Yep, similar concept, but he won't be naked all year like I will be. Maybe I should at least ask for a hat.
All my design sites are subscribed to via my RSS reader (Google Reader), so I rarely click through to see any advertising. I only clicked through on this article to see the context of the advertisements on the page. It was much more difficult to read here than it was in my Google Reader.
I like the single advertisement model. It puts the focus on a single ad and changes regularly so you don't tune them out. It's easier to incorporate it nicely into the layout as well. Curious to see how it works for you.
My thoughts exactly. As someone who is just discovering the web design/development side of the internet, it's pretty interesting how many sites that talk about "good design" fill their pages up with so many ads. The worst is the ad that goes between the title and first paragraph of the story. Whoever came up with that idea needs to get shoot.
To comment you need to take a couple of seconds to login or register. Seriously it takes seconds and if your comment is worth it, which I have no doubt that it is, then you should do it.
I'm just sad one of my ads didn't make the cut for the article. hehe