The other topic was too long and too convoluted and too contentious, but I think this is an interesting issue. Understand that I'm not taking a poll -- I don't want ads on xeney.com; I like to be able to say what I want to say without worrying about pissing off an advertiser. There are also plenty of companies that I don't really want to promote, and with most banner ad services you don't get a lot of choice.

I come from a background where slapping a corporate label on your product is about the worst kind of selling out imaginable, but judging from comments I've read on this forum and elsewhere, many people prefer ads because the money doesn't come out of their product -- the product remains free, in effect, because a corporation is picking up the tab.

How do you feel about the issue? Assume for a moment that some types of information are going to have to be funded by someone other than the creator, but that we are not talking about pay-to-view. Would you rather have the option of kicking in a few cents yourself, or do you prefer the advertisement/sponsorship model? Does the answer depend on the individual site?

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Answers

I don't even notice banner ads. I really can't understand the whole 'banner ads are evil' talk. The only thing that annoys me on a website is those annoying pop-up boxes, but aside from that I just couldn't care less.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

OK, I'm going to use Pamie as an example here. Pamie, if you're reading this, I still love you and I think your page rules. But this is my example:

Before she went to using banners and being affiliated with Chickclick, she asked her readers whether they thought it was a good idea, and I was fully in favor of it. You go girl! Make more money, said I. But now that the banners are actually up, I don't know, it feels kind of weird. Like before, it was her personal site and I was reading her personal journal, and now I'm reading what feels like a newspaper column -- a really funny, witty, insightful newspaper column, but somehow less personal.

I don't know if this is particular to Pamie's site, or whether it would be the same for any site that went to using banners. I mean, I don't feel that way about sites on Xoom or whatever, for example.

The donation button affects me completely differently. It's just a way for people to send in money if they want. It doesn't make the site commercial, it's just there if you want to show your appreciation or help out a little.

And even though the banners have changed how I feel about Pamie's site a little, I still go there every day, I still read it every day, it still makes me laugh. It's not like she's a big sell-out now, but it does feel less personal than it used to. I guess that's all I'm saying.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

You know, everything I just said about Pamie's site, forget that. I don't know what I was talking about. I was just over there reading today's entry and her site is just as personal as it always was. I think I was smoking crack earlier. Sorry about that.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I've noticed Pamie's been updating every day again since she got her banners, and that's all good as far as I'm concerned!

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Thanks, Jan.

And also during the redesign the updates were getting kind of lax. When I have deadlines, sometimes Squishy gets put on the back burner, and that was bothering me. With the new direction it's going, there's a reward for the more fun I have, and in turn, the more fun you have on the site.

That and at one point I couldn't upload one more page without an extra fee.

Right now I'm just happy that people seem to be adjusting just fine. Maybe the initial jolt is because the banners went up with a redesign, and a new forum, instead of a gradual change. I had to do that to put the banners in, and I had to take control of the forum to track it for chickclick. So, boom, the new pamie.com look might be a bit odd for those that have been following my journal for the past two years, as I struggled with WYSIWYG editors and Notepad, working up to the day when my site looked like one entity.

And that I'm happy about, too. I know it must have been an initial shock. I'm glad to see you guys don't think my writing has suffered. I'm not sure how it would, since it's still my place to go to tell my personal stories.

As for the donation button v. banner ads: i do think that they are two very differen things. The whole "pay per view" debate that's been thrown around is really a misnomer. There is no charge for viewing these pages. The donation button works like the wish lists (although I never asked for gifts, they just started (and continue to this day) coming to my house). That's a nice surprise, but not something that you're asking for.

I never had one complaint when I put the web host company's "click me" button up for a Squishy fundraiser. My last web hosting place would give you credit for people clicking the button. People either clicked or didn't, and it really helped me out over the past few months. But no one complained.

And in terms of banner ads, it really surprises me because almost every site you see these days has banners. You don't have to sit and watch the commericals when you watch your favorite show, but because of the commercials you get to see your favorite show.

The Onion has banners. I've never seen anyone complain.

I want to promote Squishy. I like the ideals of ChickClick and their grrl action ways. I like being affiliated with Wing Chun and Glark and Sars in the same network as their sites and Nicol Lohr's sites.

It doesn't cost you anything but a flick of the wrist to pan down the screen and not see the banner ads at all. I can't even tell you how annoyed people were getting at the geocities pop-ups and I wasn't making one dime off of those.

Wow. That was long-winded. Anyway, I don't think of the banners as selling-out, since I've signed onto a company that has a mission statement similar to the mood of my own site. And you aren't paying for it at all.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I find banners to be annoying. I know it's possible to disable them, I'm just too lazy to figure out how to do it.

Like Beth, I'm not too comfortable with the corporate sell-out implications of using banner ads to defray costs, but I don't expect everyone to agree with me and I wouldn't boycott a site because of them. I would say that I have NEVER clicked on a banner ad unless my mouse slipped, and I don't expect that I ever will.

I am much more comfortable with being given the choice to donate. I don't expect anything in return, nor do I think I have the right to - but at least I don't have to avert my eyes from some micro-designed piece of animated fluff.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Banners feel easier for me to ignore. They're impersonal. I'm a little surprised to see them appear on people's sites (not journalers, in this case, but people whose sites I go to because of my dead pool activities) but they don't offend me. They're sort of like the Amazon links that people put on their sites when they mention a book. Are those ads for Amazon, or the person making it easier for us to buy the book? Since I prefer to buy used or support my neighborhood store I never follow those links to get the book, but I don't object if they're there.

The person putting banners up doesn't know if we read them or click on them, unlike donations via PayPal. This feels like a big difference to me. But wait, this is the internet. Every click is being recorded someplace so it's probably possible for the journaler to find out if we're being good & clicking on those banners. Maybe the advertisers come back to the journaler and say, forget it, you're not sending enough eyes to us so it's not worth it to put up those banners. Somebody will come along and answer this, I'm sure.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Oh yeah, forgot to say that I didn't realize the chickclick was a commercial site. I was assuming it was another journal type site.

More proof that I never click on banner ads unless my mouse slips.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Beth wrote:

"I like to be able to say what I want to say without worrying about pissing off an advertiser."

Isn't having to worry about pissing off your readers the same thing? You still have to worry about where the income is coming from.

I also see this happening in reverse. If the writer notices more donations after a certain type of entry it will encourage her to write more of that type of entry.

Some people might see that as a good thing. I do not. The success of McDonald's comes to mind.

As far as Pamie's site goes, with all that chickclick stuff I'm feeling like Pamie's site is just a little too "girlie" for my taste. It's too much like a girls-only club.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

First of all, I think this whole question will become moot in a few years, because most of the Web-based services that depend on ad revenue will go under, because advertising usually doesn't work on the Web.

Second, I devoutly hope that the Internet will kill mass-market advertising. In 1960, if my parents wanted to buy a new car, their only sources of information were their own circle of friends, advertisements, newspapers and magazines that depended on advertising, and Consumer Reports. Today, if I wanted to buy a new car, I can reach people all over the Internet who are willing to share their experiences and research. With such resources at my fingertips, car ads are the last source I'd pay any attention to.

Third, when I'm on a modem or when the network is congested (and isn't it always?), a Web page with a banner ad takes substantially longer to download than a page that doesn't, and since I don't want to look at the ad anyway, this extra download time is wasted on myself, the page author, and the advertiser.

Fourth, since I'm not interested in the advertising on any Web page I read, I consider it a waste of the limited space on my screen.

And finally ... I have a generally low opinion of marketing, as a profession, and most advertising illustrates the worst traits of this profession. To quote Joel Spolsky:

The idea of advertising is to lie without getting caught. Most companies, when they run an advertising campaign, simply take the most unfortunate truth about their company, turn it upside down ("lie"), and drill that lie home. Let's call it "proof by repeated assertion." For example, plane travel is cramped and uncomfortable and airline employees are rude and unpleasant, indeed the whole commercial air system is designed as a means of torture. So almost all airline ads are going to be about how comfortable and pleasant it is to fly and how pampered you will be every step of the way. When British [A]irways showed an ad with a businessman in a plane seat dreaming that he was a baby in a basket, all sense of reasonableness was gone for good.

Need another example? Paper companies are completely devastating our national forests, clear cutting old growth forest which they don't even own. So when they advertise, they inevitably show some nice old pine forest and talk about how much they care about the environment. Cigarettes cause death, so their ads show life, like all the ads with happy smiling healthy people exercising outdoors. And so on.

When the Macintosh first came out, there was no software available for it. So obviously, Apple created a giant glossy catalog listing all the great software that was "available". Half of the items listed said, in fine print, "under development," and the other half couldn't be had for love or money. Some were such lame products nobody would buy them. But even having a thick glossy catalog with one software "product" per page described in glowing prose couldn't disguise the fact that you just could not buy a word processor or spreadsheet to run on your 128KB Macintosh. There were similar "software product guides" for NeXT and BeOS. (Attention, NeXT and BeOS bigots: I don't need any flak about your poxy operating systems, OK? Write your own column.) The only thing a software product guide tells you is that there is no software available for the system. When you see one of these beasts, run fleeing in the opposite direction.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I want to make it clear that my feelings about banner ads on my site have nothing to do with my feelings about banner ads on Pamie's site. I like Chickclick and I think it's perfect for Pamie, both in terms of her style and her readership.

We have a different demographic over here, I think, a different tone, a different kind of diversity. I know for a fact that we have people here who won't shop at Amazon and who are offended by Amazon links. I know we have older men here who would be a little put off by ads targeting twenty something women. We have a few old schoolers who are going to be less offended by a donation button than by a big blinking ad.

Anything I do is going to offend someone. The Amazon links I have right now that give money to an animal shelter via GiveQuick? I've had a complaint about those, because of Amazon's effect on small bookstores. (And in case you all think is a new debate, you should have been around when people started putting those Amazon affiliate buttons on their personal pages. Don't think for a second that that little trend began without a fuss.)

Dave said:

"Isn't having to worry about pissing off your readers the same thing? You still have to worry about where the income is coming from."

Trust me, Dave, the money from donations is not enough to have that kind of impact on me. I'm sure I've already received the bulk of what I'm going to get. Of course I try to write things that I think people would like to read -- that's no secret. But if my readers are going to have a direct impact on what I write, they'll have a lot more success using hate mail than they will by sending me a quarter.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

What somebody does with their own site is their own business, but I do prefer the banner ads. Yes, I admit it, I'm the insane one who actually looks at them, sometimes clicks on them, and on one or two very rare occasions actually signed up and/or bought something because of them. (I found my pure sex scented candle through a banner ad for Illuminations, and now I'm hooked on the company.)

I would be terribly dismayed if a journaller had to change his or her content to conform to a banner company's preferences, though- I think if a company liked a site enough to want to sponsor it, they shouldn't suddenly want to change it just to slap an advert on it.

Of course, for sheer aesthetics, I'd prefer no banner ads on any site (especially the wicked, evil blinky ones of seizure inducing doom!) but sometimes life just bes that way. I would also like to watch ER without commercials, but that's not gonna happen either. :)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I have two problems with banner ads -

The first is that they don't always jibe with the content on the site. I know there is someone online who has a gallery of examples, but I cannot remember the URL - maybe someone here will....the best one of course is the banner ad for the new Eminem album on a site promoting the end of 'hate rock'.

The second is that some banner ad groups, like chickclick, act as censors for the content of the sites they put their advertising on. Pamie mentioned that she had to change the front graphic of her site because chickclick told her to because they didn't like the content, and I have to say that, as soon as I read that, I became an ex Pamie reader - not that I don't think she is fabulous and wonderful and hilarious, but because I do think that, and I have no desire to read a watered down and sanitized version of her site.

I don't get it,to be honest - people make such a fuss about how wonderful chickclick is - but all that I see is a clever marketing ploy - it isn't about giving women a voice on the web, it is about selling crap to women, and more often, little girls - there is nothing weirder to me than seeing them run an article about how all women are beatiful inside, right next to a huge side banner for eve.com.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

i definately prefer banner ads over donations. with banner ads, i can just ignore them if they bother me, scroll down, no problem. but with donations i feel as if i'm "expected" to pay or why else would the donation be there? and i feel cheap when i don't pay but the problem is i'm not a lawyer like you beth, i just plain can't afford it. but i really like your writing and am glad that it is still free to me to read it. however, if you were publishing in a magazine where the magazine pays you and then i'm supposed to pay for the magazine, guess what? i still wouldn't pay for the magazine because having no money means having no money. what i would do is just go to the library and read the magazine for free there. i realize i'm digressing from your original question but i noticed the heated debate going on earlier and i have to admit, i'm in agreement with saundra on this issue. i really don't like the donation aspect and i wish you would take it off your page. this opinion of mine is not meant to in any way offend you and i really don't understand why you became so inflamed with saundra over it. if i'm in the minority on this issue, then i'll just sit back and accept it. but i do like to think i'm allowed to express my thoughts without someone lashing out at me.

thanks,

andrea

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Banners don't bother me, and people using them don't bother me, I'm actually desensitized to them so I hardly notice them, donate buttons are ok too

Pop up banners are still annoying, esp. when 50 come up at once.

When I chose my site~~HuaHuaville It was because it was free, and because the banner at the top was less offending to the eye then other banners, and pop up box sites I had seen. It doesn't bother me at all to use this free space, and I am grateful to have it. The same goes for diaryland, and they don't have banners--yet ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Andrea: not having any money is one of many excellent reasons why you might not want to donate. That's fine. But we already have a topic for discussing whether I was a bitch to Saundra and whether I should be seeking money for this website; I'd really like to keep this topic focused on banner ads vs. donation buttons as a more abstract concept, as I said in the original question. Thank you.

As you were.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I think it's important to point out - for those of you who may not have thought this through - that banner ads are advertising. Their sole purpose is to generate revenue for the advertisers. I happen to work for a company which occasionally designs banner ads, and let me assure you, this is all about money.

I have no knowledge of what Pamie's deal is with chickclick, but they wouldn't have agreed to sponsor her if they didn't think they were going to profit from the arrangement. Having made that assumption, I think it would also be safe to say that Pamie will benefit fiancially. Whether this means that she will be able to maintain her site without bankrupting herself, or whether she will actually turn a profit - that's really none of our business.

While neither Pamie nor Beth, should have to explain to anyone why they've made the choices they have regarding their sites, don't assume that hosting banner ads doesn't result in a pay off - possibly one that is far more lucrative than an occasional donation.

Pamie/Banner Ads = Network Television, Beth/Donations = Public Television - both good, just different.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Chickclick banners don't bother me, because they do a really great job of picking sites with good content. I even find that huge awful one at the bottom of MightyBigTV tolerable because they provide me with such great content on a regular basis.

I'm glad Pamie's being paid for the work that she does and wouldn't begrudge anyone for getting paid for it. (Unless I thought they sucked, and then I would be bitter.) I trust that if Chickclick tried to keep Pamie from saying something she thought was really important, then she and Chickclick would part company. If her content turned saccharine and obviously advertiser-controlled, then I'd stop reading.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Hey, hey, hey, don't bring me into this, Andrea! It's not my business, and I said it here, and in that doom'ed other thread, what Beth (or anybody else) does with their site, it's their site. I only said what I think of the concept in general, just like I have here. It's not a battle of the personalities.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Banner ads are way toooooo corporate and too icky. I'd much rather give you a quarter or 4 every so often than wade through banner ads.

I'm old school. I hate them. I shouldn't talk though because I've got geocities, but I did something evil...I actually designed my page around them, so that people could ignore them and still read the content without having to click the damned things off. I could potentially shove the damned things low in the page or something or pay the $60/year to have them disappear, but I'm poor.

I think that the model you're looking at reeks of PBS. The fed gov stopped funding them and now, they're begging regularly and having to do mini-commercials in order to stay afloat. I don't think people are probably willing to "kick in a few cents" overall. I think PBS demonstrates that better than most.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

maybe i misunderstood...sorry guys. i don't like the donation thing but it really doesn't take away from this being a great site to visit overall. this is one of my favorite sites to visit because of the excellent writing and interesting newsbits and links so if adding donations helps to keep this site going (even though i myself can't contribute) than it's worth it to me.

thanks,

andrea

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

They didn't ask me to take the splash page down. I took it down. I change them out every month or so anyway, and I had put that one up as a request. There were new ChickClick people checking the site out, and they were asking about that graphic. They had no problems with the content, but on a first click, that image might be the wrong mood to set for Squishy for a teen girl. I wasn't offended, as I think I'll probably just make a t-shirt with that graphic instead.

I'm sorry you think I'm now making a watered-down version of my site. I'm not. I changed graphics and fonts with the new design. I pulled quite a few of my splash pages out of the circle because they were really large or old or I just didn't like them anymore. That was one that got pulled with the others. Part of the housekeeping.

They did say that they were concerned when they first saw it on their first visit to the site, but they didn't ask me to pull it down. I just wanted to make that clear.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I don't mind ad banners all that much, other than some of the epileptic seizure inducing ones on ChickFlick - my God! Pop up ads drive me nuts though.

I also don't mind the donation button. If you can afford to make a donation, want to make a donation, wonderful! If you can't afford to, or don't want to, that's wonderful too.

At least the donation buttons give you an option. Of course, I realize that you're not obligated to click on an ad banner (though I do click on them from time to time, especially if it's a personal site, and the creator has said, "Hey, click on the banner dealie so you can keep hanging out here."). But they are still there. You still have to at least look at them there on your computer screen.

The donation button is unobtrusive. It's out of the way, and I can pretend like it isn't even there until I get my credit card in order and can send Beth some money.

I wasn't much of a help, was I? I always seem to find a middle ground on issues.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Banner ads are simply something I've come to expect and I ignore them whenever I want to. When a couple of my favorite sites started running ads a few years ago and asked people to click them, I'd click away because that's only two or so seconds out of my time. I've clicked through on some of Pamie's ads because it's really no skin off my back. I feel more secure with banner ads because I wouldn't have to give a credit card number or name or any other information to porperly donate or show my support to a site. Yeah, they are really, really ugly but they aren't really asking for anything from you. They are simply there.

Whereas with the PayPal, it's asking for money out of your pocket, even if it is only a quarter. It's not asking for a measly little click, it's not asking for you to endure garish ad banners, it wants your money. Even if it is only a quarter.

I'll probably warm up to the PayPal idea the way I did to Amazon affiliates, banner ads and "click me" buttons.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

As I said in the other thread, unless there are many number of readers who are committed to donate every month, donate button is temporary bandage. Okay, if someone donated $10,000 that is another question. ;-)

Since I do not think anyone donated $10,000 nor $1,000, Banner is long term solution. People might donate .25c one time but how many times can Beth ask to renew their donation? The Bill for the web hosting comes annually if not monthly, as long as the site will be up.

If Beth can find a right kind of Banner, I would go for the banner. I like to see her site and Forum open for a long time to come. ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Okay, if someone donated $10,000 that is another question. ;-)

That's funny, my wife and I were just discussing that. We were talking about how the whole PayPal thing was going, and we decided that the best-case scenario was some rich old recluse out there somewhere, donating $10,000 just for kicks.

Hey, it could happen. Maybe rich shut-ins enjoy smartassery...

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Banner ads don't bother me; it's the stupid pop-up ones that do! I'm trying to read and then suddenly, my view is obscured by this pop up ad that's loading in a new (albeit smaller) window. This is highly annoying and frustrating to me.

As far as donations go, that's cool with me. Personally, I'd rather donate than see ads.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Rob,

Well in that case dont you feel like you have to play clown for that old rich, crazy person who donated $10,000? ;-)[1] He/she might have the control over the content. What do you think of that?

[1] I did not say you are not a clown already. Just kidding.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Nina,

Are you committed to donate regularly over long term period? Well, it is not like Beth can send you an envelope to remind you donate. ;-) The readers who prefer Donation over Banner should be committed to donate over long term period to support this site. One time .25c will not make a dent. ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Well in that case dont you feel like you have to play clown for that old rich, crazy person who donated $10,000? ;-)[1] He/she might have the control over the content. What do you think of that?

That was one of the things Julie asked. "So are you going to start tailoring your material to rich shut-ins?"

I said I have no idea how exactly I would do that. "Say, now, that Howard Hughes guy, he was really something..."

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

All things being equal, a button is a button is a button. If it's unobtrusive (no pop ups, no whirlygigs, no blaring colors that don't at all go with the site's design), then I can ignore it at will, and I really don't care much why it's there. In terms of bothering me, it's all about how it looks, not about the philosophy behind it.

And someone could certainly make a paypal donation button that would be every bit as obnoxious as some of the banners out there.

That said, I am philosophically much more in favor of a donation deal than a click through for a corporation. It keeps things on a more personal level - I'd far rather think that someone is asking me for assistance, then realize that they are selling me off to some company.

I have wound up on a lot of net-business magazine subscriptions (someone sold my name to somebody, and now my mailbox is full of magazines). Every one of them deal with 'content' as a rather irritating necessity, a commodity to draw people in so that they will (ta da) be scooped up by clickthroughs and cookies, because that's the *real* draw - grabbing those hits and sucking up information.

I don't want to be reduced to some corporation's commodity when I am at a personal site, nor do I like the idea that, for that corporation at least, that personal site is regarded as nothing more than a fishhook to grab me with. I think these journals deserve better respect, and so do their readers.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Well, guys, I think we have the answer right here ... I just this second got an e-mail with this subject line:

: Customers want to pay by credit card!

See? I knew it. Spam would never lie to me.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Ack, I meant ChickCLICK, not ChickFlick. I just got done watching "Fried Green Tomatoes" for the umpteenth time. That explains it.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I hate pop up ads more than anything. So much so that I almost never go back to journal sites, or any sites, that have them. Banners are everywhere and they are annoying, but I can easily ignore them if I choose. I don't ordinarily read Pamie, but I went to look at her banner and it's pretty harmless and fairly well integrated. Donations are an interesting concept, and I am still sorting out how I feel about it. I still have a lot of reservations about it and about exactly why they are being solicited. I think it's a toss up between banners and donations. Do what feels best for you if you must do that. Let the reader choose whether or not to donate.

But there's another issue which keeps coming up....

Lynda wrote:" I think these journals deserve better respect, and so do their readers. "

I'm taking her comment a little out of context but I do have to agree the readers definitely deserve better respect.

In these threads there's also an attitude in some of the comments that makes it sound as if the readers are somewhat of an annoyance, who just generate a lot of unwelcome email that is just too burdensome to answer.

I'm sure all readers' email comments are not necessarily welcome or helpful and, yeah, for readers it's easy to think they "know" some journalists after they've read a year or more of personal stuff about their lives. Sometimes very personal stuff. Maybe it is overstepping to write sympathetic comments in e-mail or even offer advice. But you cannot totally blame the reader for that very human reaction or for the personal nature of their communications. People are going to be drawn to comment under these circumstances. Whether or not journalists answer is of course up to them. And I think most readers do pretty much understand that it's like writing a fan letter. Sometimes you're privileged get an answer. Sometimes you might get a form letter. And sometimes you get nothing at all. And that's OK, too.

It's been said that, if you are popular, the number of hits per day, ends up costing you more money. Maybe you've even been forced to create of space to handle all of your readers in your forums, causing you more work and time and maybe money. Yet you clearly want people to read. Everyone's got counters, and talks about them. And I think the forums are springing up all over because journalers want people to comment, and probably enjoy the attention, too.

At the same time you are complaining about the costs, don't you realize that it's the readers who make some journals as popular as they are and make your "fame" possible. They make it possible for you to even be in a position to think about asking money for your efforts. And its the readers from whom you are soliciting contributions to assure your continuing success.

So...yeah... if nothing else readers should get better respect.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

I can live with either, but I marginally prefer the button to the banner. Less obtrusive. (However, for some reason I prefer Greenspun forums to UBB forums. Call it a personal quirk.)---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

So...yeah... if nothing else readers should get better respect.

I've seen this sort of statement before, particularly in regards to answering reader mail. I suspect my site doesn't get nearly the traffic that Beth's does, but I still get enough email from readers that staying on top of it can be a serious undertaking. It's something that I try to stay on top of, because I genuinely like communicating with my readers, but I fall behind, as I suspect a lot of people do. It's hard.

I'm wondering, in what other ways do you think readers are being disrespected? If anything, I think the donation buttons are an attempt to address the issue without being overly obtrusive to readers, so in that respect, I think of the concept as being very pro- reader. You get the choice.

My readers mean the world to me, and I know they do to most other journallers as well. Some of my best friends, at least one of who is known to most of you, started out as readers who wrote to me and started a friendship with me. While it would be silly, as was sort of hinted on the other thread, that all my readers are friends or should expect to become my friends, they are certainly all people that I'm interested in hearing from.

Perhaps this is traying off-topic a bit, I apologize...

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

Demian,

I don't have a problem donating again. My personal feeling is that Beth isn't out to scam us or "profit" from the site (in the strictest sense of the word); she's looking to offset the cost of host fees.

I like coming here; I'm sure others like coming here. And a quarter here or a dollar there is no skin off my nose, but it may be for others for various reasons stated in this forum. I don't care if others donate or not. I look at it this way: if my donation helps keep the site up, then we all benefi

-- Anonymous, July 26, 2000

In terms of bothering me, it's all about how it looks, not about the philosophy behind it.
And someone could certainly make a paypal donation button that would be every bit as obnoxious as some of the banners out there.
That said, I am philosophically much more in favor of a donation deal than a click through for a corporation. It keeps things on a more personal level - I'd far rather think that someone is asking me for assistance, then realize that they are selling me off to some company.

I agree and disagree with Lynda there.
In terms of bothering me, it's all about the philosophy behind it, to me.

Because I'd rather keep it personal, because I'd rather be asked than be sold out to an advertiser, because there are less possibility that it will all influence the journaler [except it would be even a better sytem if donating could be made anonymous], but MOSTLY because, like Seth, I jus plain disagree with advertisement in general.

It might sound completely irealistic, and I know that, but marketing campaigns and ads and all that commercial thinking turning us all into 'customers' mors than simply 'people' angers me a lot.

Pamie wrote:
And in terms of banner ads, it really surprises me because almost every site you see these days has banners. You don't have to sit and watch the commericals when you watch your favorite show, but because of the commercials you get to see your favorite show.
Well, even if it IS true in certain cases, I still don't like the whole idea of advertisement. And certainly not on personal sites.
Your favorite show on TV, even if thought of and made by 'artists', is a piece of pay-for content. They want to make MAKE a LIVING out of it, the network, the channel, and the artists.
There's nothing wrong with that in the real world as we know it, but I don't like it, as I really dislike the whole idea of money in the first place. But I digress, this wiould take us too far anyway.

Someone said Banners feel easier for me to ignore.
I feel this is sad, It is true of me as well, that I have the impression I learned to ignore them, the same way I think I'm ognoring the big board ads on the side of the road.
But we're NOT ignoring tem. They are polluting our world, and polluting our minds, and they have an insidious effect. On the wb or optherwise, philosophically, I loathe ads, and practically, they bother my philosophic views. And if an OLJ is your hobby, your personal way of enjoying yourself, than It's ok for me if you try offset the costs, but it has to stay personal as well. Donation is.

On a journal, I don't mind participating, on a forum, I wouldn't even mind a subscription fee, but I don't want to see banners.
I don't want my eyeballs sold to someone I don't know, some corporate America eCommerce venue, without my consent.

Not that I stopped reading Pamie, but I stopped considering her site as a journal, that's all. I read other stuff with ads, and it doesn't make me like ads more.
The bottom ads on mightybigTV are worse than evil.

See, I put links to Amazon sometimes, but I advocate to NOT use Amazon too much because of the 'killing' of smaller shops. Therefore, I don't have a button, and I'm not an affiliate.
Yopou think that's contradiction? To me it's compromise with the unavoidable evils of this world. And more than that, If I can get more people to use Amazon as a gient dictionnary of books instead of a shop, I'll be happy.
If someone goes there through my link to a book and buys something (this book or something else), I don't WANT to make money from that. I don't.

Ok, it seems I got carried away here.
I guess my point is "banner vs donation : donation!!!"
Sorry for the length...

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Oops for typos.
And Al? I'm happy you said that, 'cause I also like greenspun forum better.
I guess I have my quirks too, then. ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

If it's a choice between the button or the banner, then I'm with Al. The button is far less obtrusive.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

And I thought my greenspun-affiliation was just me ...

Banner ads annoy me, because I feel as if the webmaestro thinks I'm the sort of person who would click on banner ads. Like I hate spam, because the people who send it think I'm going to sign up for their crappy pyramid selling scam rather than close down their mail account by complaining (tee hee). Like the religious weirdos who come to my door during dinner thinking I'm going to get saved, right then and there. Like ...

*anna gets dragged from the keyboard, panting*

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Donation. It's less obtrusive and I think it respects the readership more. Etc, etc.

But that's easy for me to say; I live in Canada and can't donate.... which actually really annoyed me, but that's a problem with Paypal not with Xeney.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

As I said to Dave Van last night, you can expect to see a lot of Canada-bashing in this journal from now on, since you're all a bunch of freeloaders.

That was a joke! Settle down.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Hear hear Joanne! Of course, us outlanders could just start sending Beth monthly checks for her efforts. But I really don't care either way about banners, donation buttons or the like. It's the call of whoever's responsible for the site in question. Having said that, I think the banners on Squishy look pretty tasteful and inobtrusive to me, and I certainly do not agree with the remark that it turned her personal site into some kind of magazine. Not after reading today's entry, anyway.

Personally, maintaining a site dedicated to a fairly popular tv-series, I wouldn't be caught dead using banners or donation buttons. The bottom line in that case is that I want to make it absolutely clear to everyone that there are no commercial interests involved. And that includes the producers of the series, who have a reputation for shutting down fansites when they even suspect they're being used to make money. But in the case of jounal sites - never mind what anybody says, just do what you think is right. It's not like you really have anyone to answer to but yourself, right?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Al of Nova Notes said,

(However, for some reason I prefer Greenspun forums to UBB forums. Call it a personal quirk.)

I feel the same way.

Now how many prefer Greespum over UUB? Or UUB or Greespum?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

...as I really dislike the whole idea of money in the first place.

What? You dislike the "whole idea" of money? Like, you wish that people didn't offer things in exchange for other things, or you wish that there weren't pieces of paper and metal that represent a value equivalent to an amount of tangible items? What does that mean?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I meant GREENspun...:) Grease-spun? I prefer over UBB because it is so much easier to read.

Is this just only me?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I, too, prefer the Greenspun to read. BUT, I can completely understand why that is not the forum of choice for maintainers. There isn't nearly enough control.

I do wish there was a way to follow a UBB via e-mail. (or if there is, I've somehow missed it.)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

re: UBB-- you can follow a thread by e-mail when you post a topic. i'm not sure if you can do it when you're just responding to a thread, but when you begin a topic, you can check a box to get notified whenever someone posts on your particular topic.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

If there were an outbreak of Canada-bashing, we'd probably just be happy to be noticed. Like it's always a topic of conversation at work the next day whenever a popular American show mentions Canada. "And then Rob Lowe gave directions on how to get to Nova Scotia! How cool is that!"

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

If you don't like money, you can always barter.

I suspect that Beth would be more than happy to have someone offer to clean her house, so she could finish her stuff to be able to pay for this olj gig.

If you live too far away, then you'll have to hit the donate button and give her a quarter, so she can continue to pay the maid service to clean her mansion.

Geesh. It's just a quarter. And she's not demanding it. She has a little button. You can hit the button, right click the button, resize the button to encompass your entire screen, get funky with the button, give the button a musical score, and just as with banner ads, you can ignore the button.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

People talk about being offended by the donation button because it is YOUR money instead of a company's going to Beth's site, or whatever. Well, guess what: It is YOUR fingers typing the URL, YOUR eyes reading Xeney, YOUR grin emerging when you read something you like, et cetera. We pay for books and magazines we want to read (except at the library), we pay for ice cream we want to enjoy, we pay for concerts and movies and the rest. If Xeney.com entertains you, I won't go so far as to say you deserve to pay something, but she is giving you the option, and it is my personal opinion that giving you the option is perfectly reasonable thing for her to do.

I, too, will donate once my credit cards are at a reasonable level. :)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I've been thinking about this and I read the whole gosh darn thread to get to here and there are a lot of good points. However, it does sort of bother me in the sense that I'm just sick of commercialisation. It also sort of surprised me when Pamie intimated that her forum was started in order to create a community and invite advertisers. Did I read that correctly?

In looking for the reference, I can't find it today. I also can't find the mention of the 350 dollars that Pamie was shelling out. Did it get edited or am I just not looking hard enough?

Anyway, I think my beef for having advertising on a site is the same beef I have with ads on television. When radio shows first came out they were sponsored but no one knew by whom. Then the shows began having a voice-over "Sponsored by Dove Soap" and then they began inserting ads. People were really not that excited about hearing the ads... it interrupted their enjoyment. Now, when you watch a television show, there are so many ads and so much less of the show that I get the feeling that the show is only there to get me to watch the ads. In fact, I beleive that is true. Why is Law & Order a good show? Because if it wasn't good then people wouldn't come back to watch the ads.

I know it's a bit of a stretch at this point but I feel like Pamie now must be very good to keep me coming back to look at ChickClick ads.

Someone earlier said that it ruins the intimacy that the reader feels with the writer and I believe that to be true. It does sort of put the reader at more than an arms length.

As for donations, I'm still not sure. It seems to be a somewhat happy medium between outright commercialism and free stuff. I won't click, though, because, like Tracing, I have my own journal and that's how I give back. And, with my own journal, I'm in control of how much I spend on it and what I'm willing to do for my audience. I do understand the bandwidth concerns -- that's some crazy stuff going on if you're killing the server bandwidth -- but, then again, there seems to be ways to deal with that.

I don't know... good luck with it?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Dave Van is a Canadian? Well that explains it! When I e-mailed him for the URL to his site, explaining that I was just a fifty somthing journal reader from Illinois wasn't enough. He wanted three references, a resume and a urine sample. That's a little farther than I'm willing to go. But if a journaler who's writing I enjoy (and you all may know because she is a close friend of Rob's whom he met through an e-mail) happens to ask for pledges to a charity, which may not be my charity, but a good cause nonetheless, and is will to peddle her butt 350 miles or so for, yes, I'll give to that. The banners and donate buttons are no problem either, just never hit me with a pop up window.

Dave

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Slack: I haven't edited anything out of these threads (except some HTML errors). Pamie's comment about the cost of Squishy was towards the beginning of the other thread. And yes, I believe she said in the same post that Chickclick had encouraged her to start a forum.

I like the analogy of public television vs. network TV. Most of us spend some time watching both, and you may or may not look at the ads or make a contribution, but enough other people do to make it viable. I do promise never to hold a pledge drive.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

xeney.com account that Slack person has looks neat. :-)

Beth, can you provide Xeney.com E-mail account for $5 a month? :)

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

No, you can't have an email address! Just kidding. It's not really an email address anyway but I'm thankful to have it.

Sorry about the loss of a reference there... I guess I just couldn't find it.

Public television, now *there's* an analogy. I rarely watch PBS but I do listen to NPR and I haven't yet given during their pledge drives but I think I will... eventually. I'm a Slacker.

There has been an uproar in the past when NPR and PBS started having those little announcements that "This broadcast is made possible through the kind contributions of XYZ Big Company." It *is* an advertisement which the die-hards thought devalued the thing. It's more realistic, though, for those companies which provide a valuable and unique resource to try and solicit contributions that way. It helps them.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

It was a year and a half ago. I was mentoring with someone from ChickClick at sxsw to discuss Squishy and how to make money from non- mainstream content. She said that they had heard of me and were watching me on Geocities, but they were curious what kind of community I could have. They offered up the suggestion of the forum. I was skeptical, as no one else had a forum that I had seen. If they had one, it just had a couple of posts a day. So, I found this thing through Beth's garden journal, changed the Q & A to a forum, and lo and behold, it was pretty damn popular. So, they asked if I had thought about it. I said I hadn't, I did it and I'm quite pleased with the results.

You know, they've never discussed advertising with me. ChickClick is here to make sure the site makes money, but they don't censor my content, and they don't get in my way. I control how Squishy is marketed, and I can refuse any ad that they put on my site. I just have to write and say that I don't like it, and it's off the rotation within a day or two.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

I'm surprised by the number of people who say they won't go back to a site if it has something in particular - banner ads, pop ups, whatever. I get annoyed by things, but if a journal interests me for whatever reason, I'll keep reading. It doesn't matter ultimately if it has banners, donate buttons, bad design, etc. I guess I'm just not that critical about things beyond content.

I very much prefer greenspun to UBB. The other UBB forums I go to load much, much more slowly. That may be because they have more graphics; I'm not sure. The page is busier than I like.

I don't like the way UBB breaks topics into pages, making it harder to go to the end of the topic quickly. You have to click more times to get there and to get back out.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

For a topic that has certainly riled people up, I don't much care.

Pamie's banner ads don't bother me. I just skim right over them to get to her entries, which I find as good as ever. Now, if her banner ads were like that damn huge bar at the bottom of Mighty Big TV, I might have to think differently, because that takes forever to load and reduces the screen size too much.

Beth's donation button? Rob's donation button? Any donation button? Click it if you want. Don't click it if you want. What's the big deal? If someone wants to contribute to a site they like, more power to them. I've sent gifts to journallers I like, I exchange Christmas cards and cookies with others. It's a personal choice. If you hate it so much, don't read the site. Sheesh.

Oh--and the UBB forums drive me nuts. That's the only thing I don't like about the new pamie.com. It's so much easier to read and keep track of the Greenspun forums, but I understand the reason for the move.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Ok, I guess I'm really nowhere near as intelligent as I led myself to believe.

Exactly how exorbitant is it to host a web site? And my mind has a hard time wrapping around how ChickClick can bring in money when I've seen it more as a web ring . . . Unless it's because of the companies that have banners on the ring are selling products and therefore paying members of ChickClick to advertise there. OK, so maybe I just gained back a couple of brain cells there. But, man, I take y'all for granted and I'm sorry.

I guess in that case -- how can you argue with a person who has the opportunity to not only not LOSE money, but actually make a bit of coin?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2000

Pamie -- just curious. Do you do the multiple-page layout now (as in the last two entries) because ChickClick is trying to put in more ads?

I found it a bit odd that you suddenly had a "continued" link at the bottom of your page, for entries that really weren't all that much longer than some of your longish entries, and I was wondering why the change in format?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Oh, come on Patrick, there's only one reason for those 'next' links, stop being coy.

Why is everyone so up in arms about people trying to make a little money off their blood, sweat, and tears? What is the problem?

I encouraged Pamie to go for the banner ads. She should be getting paid for what she does.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

i agree with dave van. i agree with dave van? i agree with dave van!!!

ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!

(kidding dave)

seriously patrick, this whole issue seems to have really gotten you pissed. and i'm not exactly sure why. i agree that throwing money into the equation is a bit unsettling, but it was/is bound to happen, so roll with it. i would expect you to have a little more faith in people like beth and pamie not to sell out or whatever it is people seem so afraid of.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Now, Pamie, that's why I said I was getting carried away...
I should have edited before posting if I had had a bit more sleep that day.
What I meant is unclear even for me, and it not relevant in that discussion, actually. So the whole things was a mistake.

At that point in time, what I wanted to say is that when someone, say, an artist, makes money from their art, because they decide this is their profession [even if it is part-time, or whatever]. But when someone like you [even if you ARE an artist, as in, a professionnal one, that I am not contesting] writes an OLJ, even though this is public and all, I consider it as something more private, more of a hobby, and i am not confortable with the commercial thingie that ads imply. That's all I meant.

Your question about my stupid comment I cannot answer to right now, because I am too tired, and I don'think this thread is the right space anyway. It was merely just me falling back into the political/social utopia I nursed when a teenager, I think.

I am not afraid to see Pamie's work quality change, and I don't think that she is selling out, because selling out implies selling herself out. I know she is in complete control of all this.
I do feel that I am being sold out by Pamie to advertisers, and that I can't help but dislike.
I'd donate money for that to stop, I really would. And I'd feel better If I still had this feeling that the whole journal thing is an intimate venue, and a hobby place, not a commercial thing.
As Stee says, throwing money in the equation is a bit unsettling but is was bound to happen. I am neither surprised nor upset about that at all.
But My money is something I am in control of [which is why I like the donation and even subscription model better]. Someone selling my eyeballs makes a decision for me, which is different.

Don't tell me I can still stop reading, because Of course I know that, and I would stop if it was so crucial at some point for me.
I'm merely trying to explain how I feel about it, as this thread [and the other] invites us to do.

Pamie, I'll make this whole 'disliking money thing' clear later on when I will have had more sleep, ok? [that's not likely to happen until mid-August, though].

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I've got to say, I MUCH prefer the UBB forums to the greenspun ones. They may load a little slower, but they are so much easier to read (especially the long threads, because they split up), and they protect privacy much better. I know that I'll be much more likely to post on pamie's forum now than I did before. As to the banner v. donation question, I generally prefer banner, but that's just because I'm poor and lazy. Therefore, I can click around on pamie's page for a little while every day and feel as if I've helped her (the same why I keep hissyfit and MBTV open for hours at a time), but I'll forget to donate. But that's just a personal quirk.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

unless i was intimately involved with a site, i doubt i would ever click a donate button. a donate buton makes me question (because it is the web after all, where men can pretend to be women,etc) what the person will do with the money. it is a "donate button, please help me keep the site up", NOT A "pay button, because this is a profit-making site and i can do what i want with the money". sorry, i don't know beth (though the journal gives me the illusion i do), i don't trust the donate promise (though she does seems trustworthy), so i will never click a donate button.

a donate button is not the same thing as what npr does. they hold periodic donation-athons, they give you stuff in exchange for money (stuff that advertises npr!), and you know the money supports npr.

i think a tastefully designed ad-banner method, with one quality advertiser, would actually give the site credibility and stature. what if salon magazine , for example, were to sponsor your site? wow huh? if this is just a hobby, a donation button is fine to reap goodwill from people who know you.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I'm actually not pissed, stee, I'm really just interested.

Pamie had said that there was no change in content due to the ChickClick changeover, but if she's been told to switch to a multiple- page format, that's a (albeit subtle) change. I'm not drawing any conclusions one way or the other, I really just want to know if that's something administered by the corporate sponsor.

Where the compromises lie, isn't that part of the discussion? Or must it be all praise, all the time?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Patrick: Pamie has used "continue" links on some of her entries before, and you can also find them peppered through her archives. This long predates the addition of banners.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

yes. it must be all praise all the time.

in seriousness, this is not really my place to say, but i know for a fact that chickclick asks nothing of the sort, and certainly didn't of pamela. they are an extremely silent partner. (i read the entire contract for a side project i am working on.) they ask nothing in the way of multi-pages, etc.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Patrick,

I answered this question already on my own forum, in much more detail. That's probably a better place to ask me a question like that. But no, chickclick hasn't asked me to do a thing to my site but put their banners on it. and then i made banners and images for their network rotation.

I'm not really going to discuss my contract much further, as I'm sure it's a breech in some way. Every site has different negotiations.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

And also, I'm curious as to why anyone would be upset about someone being paid for something that that they love to do.

isn't that what everyone wants?

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

pamie said: "And also, I'm curious as to why anyone would be upset about someone being paid for something that that they love to do. isn't that what everyone wants?"

Sure, that's true. But the issue doesn't seem that simple. There's a bunch of other stuff like for example:

I've been getting it for free and now I gotta pay?

If it's on a donation basis and I don't pay, will the journal notice & not like me?

It's neat that the journaler is getting paid but how come it has to be by ME??

Is having corporate sponsors (of ANY level) gonna change the content?

Is getting donations gonna change the content?

How come we're supposed to pay for your hobby?

Does this mean your site has gotten really really popular? well then I'm going off to find one that nobody knows about!

etc etc etc etc

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

If what you want to do for a living is be a writer...

...writing really isn't a hobby.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Maybe the problem here has something to do with the fact that by it's very nature an OLJ creates a false sense of intimacy between it's author and his or her readers. What is all this stuff about a journaler not "liking" someone if they don't donate? Should that really be an issue?

This is entertainment. People like Pamie and Beth and Sara and Rob and Stee and many others are very good at what they do, and they have the traffic to prove it. Maybe it started out as a hobby or a fun project or whatever, but if someone wants to hand them a huge bag of money why should anyone care? They deserve it.

So far I haven't seen much difference in Pamie's site, she's still sharp and funny and I don't think that's going to change just because she has a sponsor.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I've written to pamie trying to explain this, but (of course) I can't shut up here.

"Just curious," really truly meant just curious! Honest! Pamie is the first online journaller that I know of who's made the leap into the great unknown of going "public." Since there are others of us who are "pre-IPO" journals, it's fascinating to me to know the rules and regs involved in turning a journal into commercial site.

Splitting up your writing, whether at the behest of your corporate sponsor, or because you want more page views (if you're getting paid by the page view), or because you think that a new-found audience may find shorter pages easier to read and "digest" isn't, to me, a bad thing or a good thing. It is, however, different from the way pamie generally wrote before, and I'm intrigued by the changes. (Sara Bunting of Tomato Nation [a ChickClick site] splits up her entries, and I'm as devoted a reader of her as I am of pamie.)

I agree, getting paid to do what you love is wonderful. I don't know what would happen if someone offered me sponsorship and/or pay for my journal. I'd like to know how it affects people who are doing so now, and if my questions seem to be hostile, they're HONESTLY not meant to be.

After all, I'm furiously writing things I want to sell to HOLLYWOOD, for gods' sakes! It'd be hard to keep a "money is evil" frame of mind while doing that.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

I've been getting it for free and now I gotta pay?

No. No one has gone to subscriptions. And you don't have to donate. You don't have to send a card or a gift. You never have to touch your wallet once.

If it's on a donation basis and I don't pay, will the journal notice & not like me?

Not if they are getting thousands of hits a day. They'll notice if you were writing a lot and then stopped. They'll notice if you leave. They'll notice if you become their friend. But then you are in a different relationship. If you lurk on the forum and never write e- mail, they aren't going to notice if you aren't sending money as well. And I sent xmas cards to some people that never sent them back. It's not like I crossed them off some list or something. People are busy. Everyone's money situation is different.

It's neat that the journaler is getting paid but how come it has to be by ME??

How? Did someone write to you for your credit card? Are you upset that your eyes are causing pennies to be sent to someone who posted content for you to read?

Is having corporate sponsors (of ANY level) gonna change the content?

Every contract is different. In my case, no. They said I can do what I want. Because they watched my site for a year. They know what I write about. They respect my work. They wanted me. I wanted them. It was a mutual agreement.

Is getting donations gonna change the content?

You might get more content, more frequently, with a better quality. More money, more time. You might just be pissed when that person suddenly goes on a vacation. You might not even notice a difference at all. Every person is different.

How come we're supposed to pay for your hobby?

You're not. It's not my hobby. It's my career choice. I'm a writer. I promote the writing that I do in any way that I can. I'm just getting myself published. I didn't ask you to pay for it. You also don't have to get the newspapers I write for, and you don't have to visit the other sites that I get paid to write for, and you don't have to buy any anime tapes or see any shows that I do. You don't have to pay a dime for anything that I do. Because I didn't want you to, I found other people willing to pay me so that you didn't have to.

Does this mean your site has gotten really really popular? well then I'm going off to find one that nobody knows about!

This is like those people that say, "I don't listen to anything or watch any movie that other people like." I always think that's a little sad. "People like them. I hate them because of it." I can understand if that person was disrespectful or abusing their position or being cruel. But if it's just a site that makes people happy, then either you like it or you don't. And if you don't read it, you don't read it. If you read it and don't tell anyone because it's much cooler to dislike it, then.. I don't know. That's sad.

I have a hard time understanding that. It's all individual taste. You can dislike a writer's work without having to dislike them just because other people like them. It seems like an awful amount of energy to ignore something because other people mention it.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

In answer to Beth's original question: I prefer banner ads.

- Banner ads don't cost me any money.

- Banner ads are zero guilt. I do feel guilty about ignoring a donate button.

- Most importantly: The donation button just isn't going to work.

Oh sure, the donate button might help defray Beth's costs to some degree, but I feel a writer should get paid for their work. Pamie's ads will make her money beyond costs. That's a good thing. It probably won't be a lot considering the amount of time she spends on her site, but at least it's something.

Of course Beth did say she wasn't looking to make money, so maybe the donate button is perfect for her.

I believe Alfred Hitchcock said something like the following about advertising on network TV:
Who would show up for a free dinner and then complain if they found one of the dishes wasn't to their liking?

Just enjoy the free dinner.

(On a related note, looping animated gifs can be easily disabled in the Netscape 4 options. Earlier versions required a little program to patch the netscape executable.)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2000

Sara [sic] Bunting of Tomato Nation [a ChickClick site] splits up her entries, and I'm as devoted a reader of her as I am of pamie.

And just as Pamie used multi-page entries before Squishy became a Chick Click sister site, so did Sarah. Tomato Nation is a very recent addition to the Chick Click affiliates, and Sarah's been doing multi- page entries for bloody ages.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2000

So, Beth, how do you feel about your forum becoming a discussion with Pamie?:) If I had to pick between banner ads and donation buttons, as a reader, I'd pick the donation button. Just because I'm impatient and banner ads increase the load time. Same reason I prefer Greenspun over UBB. But neither are a big deal to me. It certainly doesn't deter me from something I want to read.

As far as Pamie no longer having a "journal" but a "magazine" or whatever ridiculousness, why label it in the first place? She's a fantastic writer, what she writes cracks me up, entertains me, and makes me want to read more. Why should I care if it's called a journal or called a magazine or has a banner or doesn't? That's all semantic bullshit, in my opinion.

If I could get paid to write my journal, I'd jump at the chance. I love writing, I love designing - I can only dream at this point of getting paid to do those things. If and when I have a large enough audience to do it, I will. No brainer.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Here's a question to all of the people who think that Pamie's journal is different now (and I'm not being facetious): why didn't you say something months ago when she asked her readers about banner ads?

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

Thanks, Pamie. I just want to point out that the issues I posted were various ones I've seen raised in this forum, not ones I necessarily believe. Thanks for answering them.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

From reading through this forum, it seems (to me, anyway) that people that are 'pro-banner' take that position because of the argument that 'The writer ought to get paid'.

And I think this is why I am so 'anti-banner'....because the writer isn't getting paid, at least not for their work. What they are ultimately being paid for is for being popular. While that may sound like a dream job, being paid for one's popularity, it is important to remember that it is a double edged sword - sometimes being popular isn't about how many people love you, but about how many people love to hate you, and it takes about a minute and a half to swing from being loved to being hated.

And when the money centers not around the quality of the writing, but the popularity of the writer and their site, that makes me sad, because it becomes all about staying popular, and increasing the number of pages viewers see, and how to entice new readers, and it becomes all about staying popular. Remember those girls in high school who spent all their time obsessing about how popular they were? Remember how you felt about them? That is what I think of, when I think of banner ads.

And it makes me sad because most people don't make a lot of money from banner ads. The site owner makes 3 cents a click (or $30 for every thousand page loads) and the company serving the ads makes a huge whomping pile of cash. If someone is going to make huge whomping piles of cash from someone's personal life, doesn't it seem a little ludicrous for them to be paid so little for the honour of making someone else whomping piles of cash?

If you want to make money for writing, make money for writing. Submit to paying venues. Get an agent. Rewrite journal entries into articles and submit them everywhere. Make your money based on what you have to say, and not who your friends are, you know?

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

But Kristin, don't you think that all professional writers are compensated on the basis of their popularity rather than their skill? Do you think that Jackie Collins (not the Jackie Collins who posts here, but the one who writes those silly books) makes 100x as much money as Martin Amis because she's a better writer? She gets paid more because more people are interested in reading her books than Amis's.

The same thing goes with magazines--if you write for People magazine, you'll get paid more than if you write for The Paris Review.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000

I'm one of the people who don't 'agree' with banners, and I just wanted to anser the question:
when Pamie asked a few months ago, I answered [shyly, as I was rather new around the forum at that point] and gave my opinions about banners being evil & my fear that it would alter the content.

My post at that time was unclear and I'm this close to disavow it now, because I've done more thinking on the issue.
I am not afraid anymore of the ads affecting the content, not within Pamie and Chicklick and all.

But i STILL think banners are evil.
Maybe you'll find it if the old thread is still there :-)

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2000