Indiepub Weblog

Do Affiliate Banners Ever Work?

Initially, I envisioned the title of this entry as a rhetorical question. I've never had any success with generic affiliate program banners -- even if they're stylish and current and interesting (which they usually aren't). But then I figured I'd throw open the doors and pose this question to the wider Web populace: Has anyone ever found success with a generic banner? Have you seen sales skyrocket with the inclusion of a simple ad?

And here's a question for the consumers out there: Has a banner ever enticed you to buy a product or bid on an auction?

The only affiliate conversions I've had -- and after a year-plus of doing this stuff seriously I've had a bunch -- have come from direct product links with big pictures and clear text. Even then, I need to go the extra mile and manually contextualize my product links (see one of the movie reviews at filmfodder for an example -- the right-hand column features my hand-coded affiliate links).

I'm often sorely disappointed with affiliate program materials. Buttons and banners have never worked for me and I find that the product information is lacking -- text isn't descriptive enough and images are so small they're barely discernible. I often tweak affiliate images and text to make products more appealing.

So affiliate managers, hear my cry: Please go the extra mile. Give us more image options, better text, better links and more of your marketing guidance. This is a rare situation where diligent grunt work will lead to a major return on investment for all involved. -- Mac Slocum

Google Ad Tweaks Benefit Publishers

I'm always amazed by the action-reaction nature of Web advertising. Something as simple as changing the placement of an ad banner can boost revenue or cut it off at the knees.

Thanks to Google's recent alteration of its AdWords advertising program, this cause and effect ping-pong match is being played out on a much larger scale across thousands of sites. News.com says Google changed its AdWords policy to allow low-performing keywords to remain in rotation. Ads were previously disabled if they fell below a minimum clickthrough rate (CTR). Now, low-clickthrough ads can persist as long as they have a decent "Quality Score," a number that Google says is "determined by your keyword's CTR, relevance of ad text, historical keyword performance, and other relevancy factors." In other words, the "Quality Score" is a behind-the-scenes ranking system that draws upon a slew of data -- data that people outside Google likely don't have.

News.com notes that the change has raised the ire of AdWords advertisers because many of the minimum bids for keywords have increased. For example, an ad that once cost $.03 per click (known as cost-per-click or CPC) might now go for $.10 per click. It seems like pennies, but multiply this increase over thousands of clicks and you can see why some AdWords advertisers are sweating.

But there's an upside to this, and it's an upside I'm personally enjoying. AdSense publishers -- i.e. the sites that show Google ads on their sites -- are noting increased revenue since the switch. It makes sense; higher minimum CPC rates means more income, part of which gets passed on to publishers.

For example ...

The AdWords change supposedly occurred around Tuesday, Aug. 16. Since then, I've seen a noticeable bump in my average daily earnings (I'm intentionally excluding numbers for fear of violating the AdSense terms of service -- so I hope you'll forgive the lack of firm data). Now, there was one anomalous day that saw a massive number of page impressions and clicks, so my overall increase is certainly suspect. Nonetheless, an increase appears to be afoot and it will be interesting to see how (and if) the new levels hold. -- Mac Slocum

KnoxNews Makes Vlog In-Roads

I'm not sold on vlogs (i.e. "video blogs"), but I like what KnoxNews is doing with its RandomThis section.

The Web site has equipped four Web producers with Sony Cyber Shot DSC-P93 digital cameras. The producers hit the streets of East Tennessee and then "vlog" their experiences using the cameras' built-in video recorders.

The site doesn't offer much vlog content just yet (a producer's experience at a shooting range is the only staff-contributed entry), but the RandomThis mission statement certainly bodes well:

"RandomThis is a place where we post short movies that reflect our lives and our experiences in East Tennessee. So you'll find a range of video (updated weekly!), that explores the curios and quirks we see in our lives and surroundings."

A couple of off-the-cuff observations/recommendations:

As with all multimedia, people need to know what they're getting into. Vlog producers should brush up on headline- and deck-writing skills. Always ask: Why would anyone click this link?
Web browsers are equipped with a variety of built-in multimedia applications, but there are still folks out there who don't own the latest version of your preferred audio/video player. A few well-placed links to plugin downloads are sure to be appreciated.
Clearly mark the length of video and audio clips. People need to know how long they're going to have to watch or listen.
Along those lines -- remember that brevity is always appreciated. I fear that many vlogs will fall prey to the home video trap: endless minutes of shaky camera work with no real payoff. Take a tip from news and film producers -- edit, edit, edit.

-- Mac Slocum

Expanding the Web Lexicon

I'm hoping the Web masses can help me out. A recent piece I wrote for Poynter's E-Media Tidbits blog touched on the idea of developing "Web reference points" to help explain Web work -- particularly online journalism -- to laypeople. For example, I found that when I described Web content as "conversations rather than articles," it helped colleagues and friends understand how Web journalism differs from traditional journalism.

So with this in mind, I'm hoping to develop reference points for the following hard-to-describe concepts/technologies:

Blogs -- Describing them as "online diaries" seems debasing, especially since there are many excellent blogs that never touch on personal issues. A couple of possibilities: "a chronological catalog of thoughts and stories," "short posts pointing out themes, stories of interest or thoughts," "a form of beat reporting."

RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Feeds -- I know this topic has popped up at E-Media Tidbits, but I have yet to see any definitive discussion. RSS is, even by Web standards, incredibly ambiguous. The word I always latch onto is "syndication," so here are a couple of syndication-specific reference points: "RSS is a free way of subscribing to Web content," "RSS is a technology that lets you bring all the information from your favorite sites into one location."

Podcasts -- I'm a podcast newbie myself, so I could use some help with this one. I don't understand the practical applications of podcasts. Why would I download an audio broadcast from someone I don't know? Moreover, why would I sit and listen? Maybe a radio analogy would work here -- "It's a way to subscribe to interesting radio programs," "It gives you the power to listen to audio broadcasts at any time."

I'm sure I'll be adding to this list as new technologies and concepts pop up. In the meantime, please offer your own thoughts through the comments mechanism below. I know there are great minds out there who can explain this stuff better than I can! -- Mac Slocum

Print is Boring

I had a realization today: I don't like print.

I've grappled with print for years. My undergraduate degree was in print journalism, which means I was trained, bludgeoned and berated into "loving" the medium. Hell, my graduate degree was in something called "integrated journalism." I've determined this was a fancy way of saying "it's mostly about print, but you'll stare at a computer a lot." With all the time and money I've invested in my journalism education, I forced myself to like print despite some serious misgivings.

But not anymore. I have no desire to work at a magazine or a newspaper. I derive no joy from column inches or word counts or glossy paper stock. Maybe I'm just getting older and crankier, but in my mind, the Web is where it's at.

Now don't get me wrong ... I'm not one of those "print is dead" prophets. Rather, I'm declaring that print is boring. Herein are my bones of contention:

Print is static -- I'm not a big multimedia guy, but I do believe sound and video will someday integrate seamlessly into the Web experience (yes, my positivity borders on insanity). Print will always be just print.
Print is one-way -- Print doesn't have an easy feedback mechanism (letters to the editor are not easy). Readers are expected to read, not react, not respond, not discuss.
Print is confining -- Whenever I write for magazines or newspapers I inevitably find myself worrying about space: Am I writing too long? Too short? How much will I have to cut or add? Ugh. It hurts me. I want to write to the exact length needed to tell the story or make the point. No more. No less.

Print isn't searchable -- Anyone who's waded through hard-copy archives knows the hell that lies within: mold, mildew, paper cuts ... not fun. The Web has spoiled me with its vast, searchable databases and rapid delivery of information. I won't go back.

Before you printophiles (I'm trademarking that phrase) drop a ream of newsprint on my head, understand that I think print will always have its place. The print sensation is unique: it's infinitely portable, it's pleasantly tactile, it has a built-in esteem (weird, but true). I don't see the Web as print's replacement -- it's simply a different medium that, to me, is far more interesting.

And so I leave you with this: From this day forward, I'm leaving my forced appreciation for print behind. Please try to contain your enthusiasm. -- Mac Slocum

An Innovative Mix of News and Maps

Larry Larsen, Poynter's multimedia editor, shows how Google's map system can be linked to a local newspaper in this St. Petersburg Times mock-up. (More information is available at E-Media Tidbits.)

Larsen's mock-up is notable for two reasons:

It integrates Google's free mapping technology into an established news Web site. Let me repeat that: the Google Map API is free. This means there's little development cost for publishers, so even the most budget-conscious organization (or individual) can weave robust technology into their Web products with no risk. Opportunities like this are rare.
The mock-up is a visual representation of local coverage. I can't stress how important this is. Programmers get hopped up about the local coverage capabilities of personal portal sites like My Yahoo, but the end-products of these sites are simple text links pointing to simple text stories. Few users understand (or care about) the intricate programming behind this information. But if you whip out a visual mapping system that shows, to the street, where local news is happening, you're going to drop a few jaws.

I won't be surprised if Larsen's concept -- or a variation -- eventually becomes a standard feature on news Web sites and mobile devices. It's a marriage of cutting-edge technology and practical application that just makes sense. -- Mac Slocum

What Makes a Good Blogger?

An excellent case study over at ProBlogger got me thinking about the odd nature of blogging. The study details the travails of a blogger who has decided to ditch his blogs after six months of giving them a go. While I was reading I realized that the real-time nature of blogging perhaps creates unrealistic expectations of success.

Confused? Let me explain. Blogging offers instant gratification. You write something up, you slap it into your blogging system, you hit publish and BLAM! you've got a nice piece of Web content. This is unlike any other medium -- even daily newspapers and 24-hour cable networks have content cycles.

But the instant gratification ends at the submit button. Just because you publish something doesn't mean anyone is going to read it (or find it for that matter). True growth requires months of consistent posting and grooming.

As I see it, the key traits of successful bloggers are:

A unique voice -- No one likes boring content.
Consistency -- Blog early, blog often and blog even when no one is reading. Eventually they will come.
Search knowledge -- Good bloggers know what search engines want.
A great host/conversationalist -- At its best, blogging is about conversations and a person who can both start and continue discussions will do very well in the blogosphere.
Business savvy -- Self-promotion, grassroots marketing and a thirst to learn can help a blog turn a profit (or at least cover its expenses).

Am I missing any? Feel free to share your thoughts below. -- Mac Slocum

NY Times to Integrate Print and Web Newsrooms

News that the New York Times will merge its print and Web operations is a classic "so what" scenario for most of the world. I'd venture that regular readers of the Times (Web and print consumers alike) assumed both staffs already worked side-by-side.

But for online journalism geeks (I'm a card-carrying member), the Times' announcement is the natural conclusion to many hard-fought battles.

It wasn't so long ago that Web journalists had to fight every second of every day to achieve a modicum of respectability from journalism's traditional factions. That's why a quote like this is so affirming:

"By integrating the newsrooms we plan to diminish and eventually eliminate the difference between newspaper journalists and Web journalists -- to reorganize our structures and our minds to make Web journalism, in forms that are both familiar and yet-to-be-invented, as natural to us as writing and editing, and to do all of this without losing the essential qualities that make us The Times. Our readers are moving, and so are we." -- From a Times memo announcing the integration

The memo's authors, Executive Editor Bill Keller and Senior VP of Digital Operations Martin Nisenholtz, have eloquently expressed the longtime hope of all Web journalists: our work should be judged by its journalistic merit, not by its form.

Kudos to the Times for taking a huge leap forward. -- Mac Slocum

Google Sends AdSense Reminder to Publishers

I just received an email from Google with the subject line "Google AdSense -- New Features." But here's the thing: It doesn't announce anything that hasn't been announced before. Typically, message like this signal a new AdSense element -- a new ad unit, new terms of service, stuff like that. That's not the case here. This latest message is simply a rehash of recently released features like the new reporting interface, new link units and the introduction of AdSense for RSS.

Now that Yahoo has entered the contextual ad market it looks like Google is taking a proactive stance to keep AdSense in the hearts and minds of users.

Or maybe it's pure coincidence that on the very day Yahoo announces its ad program Google sends an unprecedented "reminder."

Regardless of the true motivation, I like Google's attitude. This is certainly not the time to rest on laurels, no matter how impressive those laurels might be. -- Mac Slocum

JenSense Reviews Yahoo's Ad Program

Jen over at JenSense has compiled an excellent review of Yahoo's ad program.

Before we go to far, I need to offer an addendum/clarification to yesterday's missive: The Yahoo program is in beta and it is only available to publishers through invitation. Not the best news in the world, I know, but there is a glimmer of hope: News.com says the system will be expanded by the end of the year. Presumably, more publishers will be brought into the fold.

A couple of notable points from Jen's review (which you really should read):

Yahoo's custom ad colors palette is limited.
Yahoo is offering the same 10 ad units that AdSense uses. One difference: the number of ads displayed within these units varies (e.g. Yahoo shows three ads in the large rectangle unit whereas Google shows four).
Reporting is very close to real time and it includes an estimated date/time stamp.
Like Google, Yahoo does not permit ads from other contextual ad networks and discussion of stats is a no-no.

Since the system is in beta it's hard to offer firm critical analysis, but on its face the Yahoo network doesn't seem to offer much beyond AdSense. It'll be interesting to see how (or if) Yahoo distances itself from Google.

That's it for now. I'll be monitoring future developments on this front in the Web Business News section. -- Mac Slocum

Report: Yahoo Ad Network Launching Wednesday

Let the games begin. News.com says Yahoo will on Wednesday (that's tomorrow) launch its long awaited ad network. Put your ear to the ground and listen closely: That noise you hear is the orgiastic excitement of thousands of independent publishers.

Yahoo's ad network has Google's popular AdSense program in its crosshairs. (Full disclosure: I use AdSense on all of my sites, including this one.) AdSense ads -- those eerily relevant contextual text links that appear everywhere -- give small-fry publishers a way to make money from their content. For two years, AdSense has remained largely unchallenged (Kanoodle, AdBrite, et al notwithstanding), but now the Web's other 800-pound gorilla is ready to enter the ring. If Yahoo's system catches on, the increased competition could mean higher profits for bloggers and small publishers.

The terms of Yahoo's program haven't been released. AdSense's terms of service opened up recently to allow discussion of profits, but there are still strict restrictions ("First Rule of AdSense: You do not talk about AdSense..."). It'll be interesting to see how Yahoo differentiates itself. Will we see fewer rules? Better payouts? Different ad formats? And an even bigger question is this: How will Google respond?

Under the current AdSense terms of service, publishers cannot run AdSense ads and contextual ads from other networks on the same pages. Unless Google softens this rule, publishers will not be able to feature Yahoo ads and Google ads side-by-side. Will publishers stick with Google or could we be on the precipice of an AdSense exodus? -- Mac Slocum

The Business Side of Blogging and Independent Publishing

For the last year I've been taking the business side of independent Web pubs more seriously. It started with a quick and dirty indoctrination into ad banner networks (tip: if you don't know the difference between a CPM and a CPC campaign, you should). Then I expanded my knowledge base into affiliate programs. To date, the results have been optimistic. I'm not buying that vacation home just yet, but I'm encouraged enough to keep learning and tweaking.

I'm sure at least one person is cringing while reading this: "Ads? Affiliate programs? How crude!"

I used to be this person. I launched my first site (filmfodder.com) in March 2000 and I didn't seriously consider advertising until April 2004. For years I thought -- no, I believed -- business and independent publishing were adversaries.

So what happened? I finally realized that business need not be evil. If I could slap a few well-placed ads on my pages and pay for my monthly server fees, who would mind? No one at all.

And so the ads went up and slowly -- very slowly at first -- my monthly income went up. It's still not high (I'm in the hundreds, not the thousands), but the growth has been steady. Even better, I haven't had to resort to spammy techniques to make a profit: ads are clearly marked and I try to stick to established ad types and conventions. On the affiliate side, I work hard to feature relevant products from reputable vendors. So far, so good.

The money is a nice surprise, but the best aspect of my paradigm shift is that it's proven to me without a doubt that the Web is a viable business medium. I always knew it was a revolutionary outlet for content, but I've also found it to be a modest money maker with exceptional potential for content geeks like me. To put it another way: I can write and produce stuff that interests me and get paid for it? Pinch me -- I think I've found the promised land.

If you're standing at a similar crossroads, I can assure you that you can develop for-profit sites without flushing your integrity down the crapper.

Go for it. If it makes you feel dirty you can always take the ads down.

Resources

The following sites will kick-start your business acumen.

WebmasterWorld -- The single best community site I've ever seen. Perusing the topics at WebmasterWorld will expand every aspect of your Web knowledge.

Problogger -- Darren Rowse blends a pragmatic business outlook with an approachable writing style. He's also a full-time blogger (Got your attention? It should!)

PaidContent.org -- Rafat Ali does an exceptional job covering all wings of the Web and digital content worlds.

-- Mac Slocum

Citizen Journalism: Lame Trend or Viable Idea?

I'm not sold on citizen journalism. In fact, I'm not even on the fence. Perhaps it's my inherent cynicism. Or maybe I'm still reeling from the so-called "homepage" revolution (a land full of "under construction" animated gifs, horrendous background images and long, long, long lists of bookmarks). Whatever the cause, I simply don't believe citizen journalism will take off.

Maybe I don't quite understand what citizen journalism is all about. Lord knows I've tried. I read Poynter's E-Media Tidbits religiously and I devoured every last word of Dan Gillmor's "We the Media," but I've also looked straight into the face of the "volunteer" movement and what I've seen is not pretty at all.

Way, way back, I used to work for a group of teen-oriented Web sites. For a while, it was the most fantastic job in the history of employment. Our young staff would brainstorm story ideas and then go write. That's it. We didn't have to justify anything because in those days (1997-1998), any Web content = good Web content. But eventually making money became a factor and we were called upon to latch onto money-making ideas. One of these ideas was community, which I still wholeheartedly believe in. Well-run Web communities featuring erudite individuals who can pontificate on a wide variety of topics are, to me, incredibly interesting. But amidst the community development another faction arose: the "get-them-to-give-us-content-for-free" group. It was a bad idea from the start. Essentially, we would give students and teens Web space and access to homepage building tools (think Tripod or Geocities, minus the success). Then, these unpaid volunteers would create intricate and popular Web destinations ... and all of the traffic (and ad revenue) would go to us! Genius!

No! It was stupid!

The flaw with this idea is that it hinged upon a wildcard. Somehow, someway a group of volunteers would pop up and this group would actively write and produce engaging and entertaining content. No one ever asked where this group would come from, and with good reason: NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THIS GROUP COMES FROM.

And that brings me back to citizen journalism. I want to believe that if you arm the populace with camera phones and notebooks and blogs that they'll dig up stories no one would find. I want to believe these same people will find time away from work, families and other life responsibilities to actually practice citizen journalism. I want to get amped up over hyper-local coverage. I want to see alternative voices find their place amidst the great Media Overlords. But will it happen? I doubt it. I really do.

I'm not trying to rain on the citizen journalism parade. In fact, I hope I'm proven wrong. It's just been my experience that when you aim to create a movement -- and citizen journalism is a movement -- you can't simply assume that a great mass of frothy volunteers will answer the call. I know that some look upon the success of something like Wikipedia as proof that Web-based volunteer efforts can work, but I see Wikipedia as the exception, not the norm. I know that most blogs begin with a lot of passion but quickly peter out. I know that it's rare for an independent Web publication to last a few months, let alone an entire year.

These are my big citizen journalism questions:

Where will these journalists come from?
How will they find the time to be a citizen journalist?
How will they develop an audience and a reputation? (Note: Anyone who answers this question using Matt Drudge as an example risks being punched in the mouth).

I'm willing to change my tune. Seriously. I know I've been venting here, but I honestly want to believe in this concept. If you can answer these questions and make me a believer, I will write a scathing rebuke of this post. -- Mac Slocum

Update: Vincent Maher argues that "Citizen Journalism is Dead." While I won't go that far, I do agree with a number of Maher's points. His essay is worth a read.

Mac Slocum's Consulting Services

I specialize in helping individuals and organizations improve their Web sites. My services include:

Making Money from Your Site -- Even the smallest publisher can earn revenue. I'll show you how to develop advertising and affiliate relationships with reputable networks and vendors.
Search Engine Optimzation -- The majority of visitors will find your site through search engines. I'll help you improve your rankings.
Audience Development -- I'll show you how to target your site to appeal to a specific audience.
Visitor Retention -- Learn how to improve your site's "stickiness" and how to keep visitors coming back for more.
Writing and Editing for the Web -- The Web is not a print medium. I'll show you how to craft stories, headlines and pages that seize the Web's power.
Usability Review -- Visitors have no time for hard-to-use sites. I'll guide you through a formal usability review and offer practical and cost-efficient tips for improving your site.
Blog Development -- Blogs only work if they serve a purpose. I'll work with you to determine the usefulness of a blog to your organization/site. If you opt to start a blog, I'll offer recommendations for low-cost tools and content strategies.

I charge $40/hour for these services. Flat rates are available for larger projects. Please contact me for more information.

Please note, I do not design sites, but I have relationships with a number of individuals/firms who would be happy to develop your Web projects.

About Mac Slocum

So you want to know a little about me ...

I've worked as an online journalist, producer and consultant at a variety of high-traffic Web sites. I have a bachelor's and a master's in journalism. I teach classes in online journalism and I help companies and individuals improve their existing Web sites (get consulting info and rates). I also run a number of independent Web sites and I'm owner of The Fodder Network, a collection of blogs covering a variety of topics. I hand-code my Web sites and I prefer to write in a text editor rather than a clunky word processor. I'm not sure if this stuff is impressive or not, but I just used "I" in this paragraph 11 times so I (12!) feel pretty good about myself.

At various points in my career I've tried to disconnect from the Web world, but I always come back. I've since concluded that I'm meant to do this stuff.

My main area of professional interest is independent Web publishing, which I consider a far broader category than mere blogging. I became fascinated by the Web upon first logging into my college's antiquated VAX system in 1993. From the beginning, the Web always made sense to me. It's a revolutionary communications medium that puts enormous power in the hands of anyone with the time and inclination to publish a Web page. Seriously -- how cool is that?

When I'm not staring at a computer, I enjoy spending time with my lovely wife and our two stunningly awesome dogs (Racky the pug and Loretta the bulldog -- see more of them at Smooshed Face). I love movies (visit my site filmfodder), television, edgy humor and pop culture and I am a passionate and irrational supporter of the Red Sox and Patriots. I rank 2004 as the single greatest sports year in the history of history.

Sadly, these few paragraphs do an adequate job of summing up my existence. With that I'll shut up and let you get on with it.

-- Mac