The Sponsorpool - An Alternative To Banner Ads?

Mr. Slippery asks: "A recent `Ask Slashdot' asked for thoughts about the Street Performer Protocol for funding creative work. I'd like to ask the Slashdot community for feedback on a different method, something I call the sponsorpool. (Mirrored here in case my DSL line gets Slashdotted.) It's a Web version of this: `Imagine that a street musician collects money in his hat. After every song, he reaches into the hat and pulls out a dollar bill (assume that all contributions are dollar bills). Contributors write messages on their dollar bills, and the musician reads out loud the message on the bill he selects. The more dollar bills - the more money - a contributor gives with their message, the more often their message will be selected and read to the audience.'" An interesting thought, but is this really all that different from banner ads? Would something like this work?

Comments

What if the artist doesn't like the message?

[Kris_J]

What if the message is something the artist doesn't agree with and doesn't wish to say? What if a lot of dollar bills with the same undesirable message are in the hat from the same source? This is no different to normal advertising revenue.

I prefer the "pay to not see ads" techniques that are appearing. For example, I can have all the features of Eudora free, with ads, or I can shell out for the package and be ad-free. This won't work well outside of computerised systems, but previously /. has talked about feeding money into banner ad hosting companies so that when you browse their client's sites you don't see any ads, instead a micropayment from your pool goes to that site. But since ad filtering packages for browsers are pretty good, there's not much of a demand for that yet...

Re:What if the artist doesn't like the message?

[Kris_J]

Yes, but you've ignored my second question. What if it's a lot of money for an undesirable message? What if Neo-Nazis and the KKK are feeding 90% of your money to you? Worse, what if 90% of your income is derived from a single source and after you've made major financial commitments they suddenly decide to change their message the artist doesn't like?

Have a look at early TV gameshows where the major sponsor pretty much ran the show. There was an interesting movie called something like "The Gameshow" based on a true story that showed the moral downfall of a TV show because of pressure brought to bear by the major sponsor.

Anyway, all this is irrelivant as the suggestion is no different to advertising on TV and in magazines.

Re:What if the artist doesn't like the message?

[DrZaius]

The thing most people forget is that banner ads aren't to help support websites who need funding, but to generate traffic to the website that is paying money for the ads. Therefore, paying to not see them doesn't make sense.

To most companies, a single sale through a banner ad isn't worth the effort in the long run; it is generating a back end to push other products to. Therefore, a micropayment to not see ads is worth nothing to the top line growth of a company as the consumer base does not grow.

Have you ever looked in a street performer's hat?

[human bean]

Worse yet, have you ever had to pick one up?

I have, and believe me, brother, there is not much of anything there. The longer you work, the smaller it gets. There have been days where that hat wouldn't have fit on my little toe.

Now, I could say that this is due to a lack of appreciation of my art on the part of the general populace. Or, I could say it was due to a certain lack in my performance. But from just looking at it, I would say that it is simply because folks don't want to think about it. They assume that the piper gets paid, and that is that. Soothes their minds enough to keep them from feeling guilty.

I cannot blame these folks, after all, they are conditioned by radio and the telly to think that all performances are paid for by advertising, or free.

Perhaps a simple sponsorship method, without the advertising blurb, might be appropriate. Can you say "patronage"? An example:

Say a group records a tune. Then, they figure out what the net profit would have been if they had gone through the ususal distribution channels. They divide this amount into a number of easily affordable amounts. They advertise that they have a new tune (easier if they are famous, hard if they aren't), maybe with some content (samples), maybe without. When enough folks have expressed interest in the tune by paying their little bits, the music is made available to public and the list of patrons exposed.

There are some problems with the above. There is keeping track. There is also the situation where the tune is a hit (the group gets less than they could have) versus a flop (they get more than they would have). Plus, if the band does enough flops, then nobody sponsors them. I would call this "self-correcting"!

Pay to not see ads

[SEWilco]

Pay to not see ads? Hmm.. So maybe pay Slashdot to get a no-ads version displayed to me? I imagine the advertisers on the ads version wouldn't like losing those clicks...although that depends upon the percentage and the demographic of the no-ads subscribers. Not that the advertisers have any complaint unless the contracts don't allow subscribers.

Re:Pay to not see ads

[Kris_J]

If advertisers don't pay for no-ad traffic, then they get the same number of exposures for the same amount of cash - although the shift in demographics would be interesting.

(See also some of my other replies in this thread.)

Re:Purpose of banner ads

[Kris_J]

The thing most people forget is that banner ads aren't to help support websites who need funding, but to generate traffic to the website that is paying money for the ads.

No, it's both. Why does Slashdot.org have ads? It's an income stream, nothing more. Why might Slashdot.org advertise elsewhere? That's a traffic generator. If I was able to directly pay to Slashdot an amount of money equal to the advertising revenue that my traffic would have earned them, Slashdot would be able to provide me with an ad-free version without any loss in income. My traffic wouldn't be counted in the figures provided to advertisers. Advertisers would pay the same amount for the same amount of "sponsored traffic" and they shouldn't care either. So a site like Slashdot has 40% "micropayment traffic" and 60% ad-sponsored traffic, so what? If the numbers are right no one should loose out.

(However, fact is at the moment I use an ad-filtering proxy and I see no ads on Slashdot for free.)

DNS wackyness

[Mr. Slippery]

It is of course inevitable that the day I get linked to from Slashdot, my DNS gets completely FUBARed. Something went wacky during a registrar switch. Hail Eris! We should be back up just as soon as all parties involved do their database updates.

But you can still see the mirror at http://www.charm.net/~tms/intro.html, and reach me via email at tms at charm.net.

Thanks again to everyone who took a look and gave feedback.

Re:Democratization of advertising?

[xtheunknown]

I think you are better off standing on a street corner holding up a sign saying "Nike Exploits Children" than trying to get an ad run in any traditional venue.

I think protest messages belong in protests. Look at the sixties anti-war protesters. They clearly couldn't afford an ad on network TV, but gather 100,000 of them on the Mall and, bingo, TV coverage for free.

Your points are well taken, but will there ever be an economical way of "advertising" non-consumer messages? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Sounds very similar to banner ads

[po_boy]

While this project sounds pretty neat, I'm not too sure how different it is than just a banner ad service that caters to "the little guy". I'm Here's what the site says is different:

Anyone - not just those with something to sell - can become a sponsor of your site in minutes.
I think that's true for regular banner ads, too, isn't it?

Sponsors can choose the amount of their contribution, attracting many smaller contributions (it's probably easier to find ten people willing to contribute $5 each that one person willing to contribute $50).
This may be true. I'm curious as hell to see. I'm not sure how small of a block of ads you can buy from most banner companies.

Can easily be used to allow donors to sponsor non-internet activities via your website. (For example, a high school marching band might set up a sponsorpool on a website to let the community fund their new uniforms.)
Just like banner ads, right?

Much less annoying than banner ads.
In what way? seriously, I'm not too sure that this wouldn't just be a bunch of banner ads.

I don't mean to tear the project apart. I'd really love to see it work. I'm just concerned that there's not much difference between this and regular banner ads.

Do you see much of a difference? Does this look like a viable alternative?

I guess if it gets hyped up on slashdot, I can look forward to banner ads featuring Natalie Portman and a pantful of hot grits.

Re:Sounds very similar to banner ads

[Mr. Slippery]

Thanks for the feedback.

While this project sounds pretty neat, I'm not too sure how different it is than just a banner ad service that caters to "the little guy".

That's not a bad summary. (Except that the focus is on text sponsored links, not graphical banner ads.) I want to take sponsorship away from huge corporate sponsors and return it to "the little guy." (I even think that this would help make sponsorship messages - i.e., ads - more informative and useful, actually letting you know about products and services rather than sticking another fucking Nike swoosh on something. Is there anyone in North America or Europe who doesn't know that Nike makes shoes? Do we need that fact repeated ten times a day, or would it be good to make space for other messages?)

My number one concern is that as the web gets more and more commerical, "the little guy" may get marginalized, and we could end up with something as bland, biased, and uninformative as (ugh) network television. (Possibly with some pay-per-view premium sites providing quality to those who can afford it, further dividing the haves from the have-nots.)

Anyone - not just those with something to sell - can become a sponsor of your site in minutes.

I think that's true for regular banner ads, too, isn't it?

Most sites have a "contact us for advertizing rates" message. Where, for example, on Slashdot could I go if I had five minutes and a hundred bucks? (I doubt I could get anything for $100.)

(it's probably easier to find ten people willing to contribute $5 each that one person willing to contribute $50).

This may be true. I'm curious as hell to see.

Me too. B-)

Can easily be used to allow donors to sponsor non-internet activities via your website. (For example, a high school marching band might set up a sponsorpool on a website to let the community fund their new uniforms.)

Just like banner ads, right?

I'm not sure I follow you there...Mr. Smith might have twenty bucks for the band and a message (maybe something as simple as "Go J. Random High Fighting Slugs!"), but it's unlikely he has a banner ad sitting on his hard drive ready to go.

Much less annoying than banner ads.

In what way? seriously, I'm not too sure that this wouldn't just be a bunch of banner ads.

The original plan uses text links (though as mnetioned, it's possible to expand the scheme to use graphic banners), so that's automatically less annoying. (I don't mind a brief "This site brought to you by message" at all, while banner ads inspired me to install Junkbuster. YMMV.)

The other aspect is the hope that the democratization of advertizing will lead to more ads which are actually informative, rather than just serve to imprint some corporate logo on your retina.

My thanks to those who have taken a look.

(Murphy's law is in full force: my infamous.net DNS service seems to have gotten screwed up by a registrar transfer just as this went up on Slashdot, and my ISP's server (where I have the mirror) appears to have hiccuped. Arrgh!)

Re:Sounds very similar to banner ads

[po_boy]

Thanks for responding. I was hoping I didn't tear your idea up so much that it irritated you. I didn't really make the connection that you were intending this to focus almost entirely on text based messages. In fact, if I was still unable to contact you this evening, I was thinking of hacking up adfu to serve something like what you're talking about.

If you're still looking for willing victim^H^H^H^H^H participants, I'd love to try it out on dynodns.net. I sent you a mail, but it's still sitting in my mqueue waiting for an MX record for infamous.net. ;)

BTW: do you need a hostname pointing to your machine or anything else to help you out until the NIC or granitecanyon fixes your DNS?

Re:Sounds very similar to banner ads

[Mr. Slippery]

I sent you a mail, but it's still sitting in my mqueue waiting for an MX record for infamous.net. ;)

Yes, it's just further proof of the fundamental tenets of Discordianism - Hail Eris! The domain registry's floating somewhere between NSI and Gandi, probably hanging somewhere above the Atlantic now I suppose. As soon as NSI stops claiming to be the registar, it should all be good. (Gee, NSI making life difficult? Unheard of.)

Sorry for the inconvenience. Meanwhile, I can be reached at tms@charm.net.

BTW: do you need a hostname pointing to your machine or anything else to help you out until the NIC or granitecanyon fixes your DNS?

Thanks, but I think I've got a handle on it, just have to wait for everyone to propagate their changes.

Re:Have you ever looked in a street performer's ha

[Kris_J]

and the list of patrons exposed

How is this different to traditional sponsorship? When I go to the local Zoo I see logos of companies that sponsor particular animals - how is what you're suggesting different? What I'd like to be able to do is pay a "full fare ticket" and not see all the ads. Obviously in the meat world this is impossible, but the electronic world can know that I'm a paying customer and filter out the ads.

Democratization of advertising?

[xtheunknown]

I am all for democracy, but I am not sure it belongs in advertising.

As an individual I might want to get a message out, something like "I Love You, Carolyn. Bob.", but I'm not sure that advertising is the right vehicle for that. If I want to sponsor the local HS marching band, I will just give them money. I see no need to get something in return.

Democracy is for governments, advertising is for corporations. Let's not confuse the two. P.S. Although I do admit that the line between governments and corporations is blurring!

Re:Democratization of advertising?

[Mr. Slippery]

As an individual I might want to get a message out, something like "I Love You, Carolyn. Bob.", but I'm not sure that advertising is the right vehicle for that...Democracy is for governments, advertising is for corporations.

Hmmm...for messages like "I love you Carolyn", I'd say you're right. But what about messages like "Nike exploits child labor"? Or "Joe's Tiny Corner Pharmacy has the service WalMart lacks"? Or "If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, you'll always have two evils to choose from"?

We've come to accept advertising as strictly a means for big business to inspire consumption. (Apart from the occasional federally-mandated PSA.) The reason other messages aren't heard isn't just from lack of funds, but corporate control of the means of advertising. (For example, the three major networks declined to air Adbuster's uncommercials.)

That's why to many of us, "advertisement" has become a dirty word; why we install Junkbuster, and hit the mute button on the TV remote when they break for commerical. We're not being informed about products we might find useful, we're being manipulated. Does it have to be that way? Or can we have advertising-supported media with more messages than "Buy this, buy that, it's cool to buy stuff"? I dunno. But I think it might be worthwhile to give it a shot.

P.S. Although I do admit that the line between governments and corporations is blurring!

Agreed. B-(