Bitchmeme: Do blogs deserve ads?

by Mathew on April 18, 2008 · View Comments

Louis Gray — the social media blogger who seems to be everywhere lately — has gotten the weekend blogosphere “bitchmeme” started early, it seems, with his post on how the majority of bloggers “don’t deserve any ad revenue.” According to Louis, most bloggers simply echo the posts that appear on TechCrunch and Mashable and other top tech blogs, and therefore they aren’t really adding any value, and as a result they don’t really deserve to have any advertising. He also says:

“Urged on by the success of mega blog networks like TechCrunch and spurred forward by stories from ProBlogger, or corner cases like Dooce.com, Daily Kos and others, an inordinate amount of people are hoisting ads on their blogs… in the hope of turning their daily rantings into big dollars that could possibly change their life.”

It seems to me that Louis is saying several different things here. On the one hand, he is saying that most blogs don’t get enough traffic to justify any substantial amount of advertising, and therefore they are never going to get rich, or make enough money to “change their life.” That seems fairly obvious. And while it’s probably worthwhile to let people know that the “get rich by blogging!” pitch is false, most of the people who think that will soon be in Vegas or signed up for some multi-level marketing scheme anyway, so the problem is somewhat self-regulating.

Louis also seems to be saying that for a blogger who wants to make money, copying the same content that dozens of blogs have isn’t really adding much value, unless you have an incredibly devoted and unique following. This is also wise advice (although arguably also fairly obvious). But does it follow that most bloggers “don’t deserve any ad revenue?” I don’t think so. There are lots of bloggers out there with original voices, who appeal to specific markets, and I think they deserve all the ads they can get.

Why shouldn’t they be able to defray the costs of their hosting, or their bandwidth, or their computers? That’s what micro-publishing is for. Louis says that “some bloggers act as if it’s their God-given right to write, post a few ads and start raking in cash.” I haven’t come across any of those, but he is quite right that they are mistaken. I just don’t think they’re as common as he thinks they are. And if the others can make a few dollars and advertisers are willing, then who are we to say they shouldn’t?

Share:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • email
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • SphereIt
  • StumbleUpon
  • http://www.lastpodcast.net/2008/04/18/do-advertisers-even-deserve-bloggers/ Do Advertisers Even Deserve Bloggers? : The Last Podcast

    [...] as Mathew Ingram also points out – what’s wrong with making a few dollars to pay for hosting? That’s what my ads do here [...]

  • http://www.webomatica.com/wordpress/2008/04/18/most-bloggers-dont-deserve-ad-revenue-what-about-startups/ Most Bloggers Don’t Deserve Ad Revenue: What About Startups? » Webomatica – Technology and Entertainment Digest

    [...] discourage anyone else from having a go at it, as I’ve found it worthwhile. In that sense, I fall more in Mathew Ingram’s side of things: this is “micropublishing.” I find it pretty cool to be able to earn some spare change to buy a few toys and give stuff away to [...]

  • michael walens

    i'm not sure what your point is. we don't need another derivative take on techmeme to understand what “louis said.” he makes his points quite clearly.

  • http://www.louisgray.com/live/ Louis Gray

    Mathew, while it's not as limiting as 140 characters (Twitter), trying to get what should be a research paper into a blog post guarantees I couldn't be as detailed as I wanted.

    For instance, I didn't discuss the increased use of ad blockers, or ad ignorance, which I think will impact Web advertising soon, if not already.

    As an advertiser, I would want to reach an audience, period. If that audience is already at Blog A, and Blog B or C has 99% overlap with Blog A on audience or content, then I should leave B and C alone if Blog A delivers the message first or in a more reputable way.

    Also… forgetting the duplicate content issue, advertisers commonly select a small subset of vehicles for their advertising, knowing targeting is much better than run of site or multiple sites.

    Also… according to your rules, this is a bitchmeme? (Not my intent) Would it still count if I had posted it on Wednesday?

  • http://www.simplehelp.net Ross McKillop

    I can see one possible reason not to advertise on Blog A – they charge WAY too much. Take a look at the laughable rates (and terms) of TC.

  • http://www.winextra.com/2008/04/18/no-slice-of-the-pie-for-you-mister/ WinExtra » No slice of the pie for you Mister!

    [...] Ingram said today in his contribution to this weekend’s bitchmeme Why shouldn’t they be able to defray the costs of their [...]

  • http://leighhimel.blogspot.com Leigh

    uh huh. I take the point on advertising however, monetization does not only = advertising. Let's look at some marketing math shall we?

    Louis Gray = tech flavour of the month = popularity = people want to know him = gets into the tech “it” crowd = they invite him to conferences, lunches, blog funny anecdotes about their fun meet ups etc. = job offers, board of director offers = more conference speaking gigs = increase in personal brand value…and eventually = increase in money.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Michael, if you don't understand what my point is, then I suggest you
    go and read the post again — maybe a little slower this time.
    Kthnxbai.

  • http://www.onlinemediacultist.com Eric Berlin

    Mathew – This was spot on my take across-the-board as well. If you want to take the stance that some specific sites don't deserve the traffic / ad revenue they receive, that's a very different argument, but I don't think that was what Louis was trying to say.

    By the way, I *think* michael walens' comment is pretty hilarious… right?

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Louis, I appreciate that there's a lot more to the issue than can be
    described in a post — and I'm effectively agreeing with you that
    advertisers want to target their ads, and that many bloggers aren't
    going to make the cut. But I don't see why we should discourage them
    from even trying — how are we going to find new voices? And if they
    can attract enough advertising to defray some costs, then I think it's
    all good.

    As for the “bitchmeme” thing, that was just my idea of a joke :-)

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    Unintentionally hilarious perhaps.

  • http://rizzn.com Mark 'Rizzn' Hopkins

    I think that the bottom line is that if there's eyeballs of a serious amount in any web location, whether or not the site is providing original content or a simple regurgitation of the news, there deserves to be ads.

    Where there is significant community engagement and a real sense of discussion that happens around news, then there deserves to be some monetization there as well. As of yet, we haven't found a way to really value that outside of the generic umbrella of 'sponsorship', but i'm hoping there's something there.

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    I think you are right, Mark.

  • http://www.parislemon.com MG Siegler

    Louis – you should know as well as anyone that bitchmemes choose you, not the other way around ;)

  • http://manticmedia.com/ John Wesley

    Oh my. The old blog about blogging and bloggers will blog about you theme. I don't see where the controversy is here.

  • Debbie Davies

    Shortly after being named Robert Scoble's favourite (English spelling) blogger, this guy ran out of ideas.

  • keith reid

    sorry but walens is quite right. your post is derivative and doesn't add any value. gray is quite clear about his POV

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    What a coincidence, Keith — your comment is derivative and doesn't
    add any value.

  • keith reid

    sorry but walens is quite right. your post is derivative and doesn't add any value. gray is quite clear about his POV

  • http://www.mathewingram.com/work mathewi

    What a coincidence, Keith — your comment is derivative and doesn't
    add any value.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Older post:

Newer post: