Slashdot Mirror
An Experiment in Micro-Advertising
danny writes: "Much has been said about the death of the banner-ad, but I was
curious about whether text-only ads on a
smaller scale worked. So I carried out
an experiment in micro-advertising." This is the complete opposite approach of most advertising. Does it work? Well....
I am about to set up a set of sites on a co-located server. I found the co-lo provider I'm planning on using through a Google search for "co-location". They had one of the AdWords. Had it not been for that, I'm not sure I ever would have found them! As a result, they may well make several thousand dollars from me.
I was planning on using AdWords myself to link to specific stories on one of my sites. So it's quite interesting that the author finds that they don't work well. I'll probably try it anyway -- $50 isn't too much to blow for an experiment like that. It *does* seem to be one of the more targetted advertising systems out there, at least if you're on a budget.
>$1/clickthrough sucks though...
An ad on Google - $10
:-)
An ad on Robot Wisdom - $20
A month of Web hosting - $30
A link on Slashdot's home page - priceless
Sorry, couldn't resist!
While it seems bizarre, you could imagine it working IF AND ONLY IF the products were on-topic for the blog, actually sincerely reviewed by the bloggers, etc.
It works for Robot Wisdom, the blog mentioned here, because RW's owner/operator, Jorn Barger, is madly focused on being earnest in his approach to the web. In this case, not only would he not link to something he didn't believe in, he wouldn't link to something that he felt was poorly designed. Now THAT'S good old-fashioned integrity.
Currently Barger is linking to other blogs that support his political views, which maintains his own integrity but which threatens the integrity of his blog (IMO).
Computer feeling sluggish? Time for a replacement? We've got what you need. Click here to enter our online store!
or...
Computer feeling sluggish? Time for a replacement? Visit the Dell Online Store at dell.com to order online!
Notice that the former doesn't mention the company who's advertising, and if the user doesn't click the link (and remember that statistically most users don't), you get no brand exposure at all.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Don't ever think of 'the consumer' as something mysterious and targettable. David Ogilvy (who wrote more advertisements than you've ever seen) said, "The consumer is not an idiot, she is your wife". The consumer is you. What is _your_ reaction to being annoyed?
In any event, my writeup is really more about the ethics and effects of advertising than an evaluation of particular forms. Is there always going to be a trade-off between ad effectiveness and either editorial compromise or page functionality? (But maybe I should have made that clearer.)
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
The other way they track which ad generated the call, is by using different 800 numbers for different ads. This works alot better as it doesn't depend on the caller to do something.
For that matter, it's not even just for corporate vehicles anymore, either. And, for folks who want logos on their own cars, they don't even have to be advertising, either.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Pretty slick, in my opinion.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
According to this Nielsen//NetRatings press release (PDF), the top 100 Web advertisers in "traditional" industries have a CPM of $20.10 and a click-through rate of 0.22%.
So if I worked for Google's advertising department, I'd be damn proud of Yee's figures.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
What are the chances that someone searching for the word 'modern' are going to be interested in a website about slavery? If he had picked his keywords more cleverly, I think he would have had much beter results. As it is he got ~1% click throughs, so he really can't complain too much.
Also, he was advertising for another website, so I'm not sure that this applies to people who are advertising for a product. I'm way more likely to click on a google ad if I'm searching for a place to buy a particular item then if I'm looking for information.
He did say that he used the words 'modern' and 'slavery', so I'm assuming they were seperate. Either way, it would brobably have been more effective if he had used something like the names of places where modern slavery exists or perhaps some terms related to modern slavery instead of the words 'modern' and 'slavery' themselves. Really, if his web page is any good, and someone is searching for 'modern slavery' he'd end up in the search results anyway; so why bother advertising?
Brento is correct, this experiment is essentially uninformative. Danny Yee basically posts his text ads, and when they prove ineffective he draws the conclusion that text ads in general are not as good as other types of internet advertisement. There is simply not enough information to determine whether this type of advertisement is good or not.
:)
I personally think they'll prove "just as" effective as normal graphic ads. People will be more appreciative of the lack of cheesy graphics and such, but not enough to actually click on them.
They see a low number of click-throughs, and a low number of purchaces on click-throughs. So they can see the low response to their adds. They are more willing to spend their money on tv adds where they cant as readily see they are wasting money.
The industry has been fighting this for years. You'll notice that a lot of TV or radio ads say, "Ask for Extension 760". There's no real extension 760, or whatever extension they use, but it's a code that corresponds to where they placed the ad. Of course, most of us don't bother with asking for extensions when we're ordering things.
Print ads have been doing this with their web site tie-ins for a while, too. I just picked up the latest issue of Time off my desk for an example, and Covad's ad says to visit covad.com/sdsl29. That's a tie-in to the magazine ad, and it's a lot like a click-through.
What's your damage, Heather?
The higher questions are, what kind of site *should* host ads, how can advertising be incorporated into the content in such a way as to be visable, interesting, and attractive to users of the site.
Well, I can answer the first one pretty easily. If you're getting free services, you should expect to get hit with obnoxious ads. The more you pay, the less obnoxious the ads are.
For example, take radio stations. If you turn on your radio and listen to the free stations, your content will be interrupted every 10 minutes with a stream of advertisements that make banner ads look positively unobtrusive. You get a decent amount of content, but you have to sit through a lot of ads.
Next up, public radio. If you shell out money directly to the station to support it, there's a lot less commercials. Granted, not everyone shells out the money, so in exchange, guess what? You get a minor amount of commercials. They're much less annoying than regular radio, but they're there.
Finally, if you pony up a whopping $30+ a month for digital radio through your cable provider, you can listen to streaming music without any interruptions at all.
That's how media works. The more you pay, the less someone else has to pay. But sooner or later, somebody has to pay. You can point to things like Shoutcast and whine that you can indeed get free audio, but somebody's paying for that through their bandwidth costs, and so are you. You don't see anybody running Shoutcast stations on free ISP's.
What amazes me is that people are surprised by banner ads. They honestly expect someone to put up a server somewhere and offer services for free. You don't see anybody putting up free radio stations, do you? Sure, Joe Bob might pirate some radio for a while, but when he gets bored, he goes back to work like the rest of us.
What's your damage, Heather?
The text-only ad said:
563 lively book reviews on all subjects
Whereas the Google ad said:
A passionate but scholarly study of modern slavery
Anyone with half a brain is going to read book reviews before they read a "scholarly study". This isn't a controlled study, and the results are useless.
Suggestion to Danny: the next time you do a study, the test has to be set up so that it's not biased. The ads should have exactly the same content, so that you can judge the ad delivery and not the ads themselves. If you were trying to find out who found book reviews interesting as opposed to studies, then you ran a successful study, but otherwise this is totally useless.
What's your damage, Heather?
John Wanamaker said it long ago, "I waste half of the money I spend in advertising. I just don't know which half."
Actually, I did a Google AdWords. But in a trollingly juvenile kind of way. You'll either like my story, or you'll hate it.
:) (Probably NOT.)
I submitted a story about Google's adwords, and how it was very interesting in that *anybody* can place an advertisement, automatically, for anything they wanted. I personally consider this a revolution in the way advertising is handled, and I wish the idea would spread.
Of course, my story was rejected. So, what does any evil Slashdotter do? That's right. I did a Google AdWords banner. It was titled "Get the Slashdot Guide!" with the body something to the effect of "Learn the secrets and make the most out of Slashdot. Ride the Taco!" It was set on the keyword "slashdot". It displayed the URL "www.slashdotguide.com".
Effectiveness rate? VERY. I was getting about 12% click-throughs each day. I set a tiny budget of $30. It lasted for a few days. I would say that AdWords can be *very successful* if you correctly target your advertisement. Your experiment was rather bland, IMHO.
Oh. The catch? The ad, while claiming it was directing you to "www.slashdotguide.com" and displaying the URL on a MOUSEOVER, actually linked them to the GoatSe.cx picture. I'm rather surprised that Google didn't put a stop to it. I'm rather surprised I did it.
But it did get my point across when I re-submitted the story about Google AdWords. Even if they didn't follow through on it then and there. Maybe this story has something to do with it?
The micro ads on my.yahoo.com get my attention far more than the banners. I've become conditioned to not even look toward anything flashing or rectangular with the standard aspects. I don't think I could even tell you what the standard ads are in circulation on Slashdot anymore, despite visiting about twice daily.
The third hit was this address:
www.spamfreebulkemail.com
"Spam-free bulk email"...that's rich. Isn't that like "dehydrated water" or "Christians Against Christ?"
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
Imagine a world where television programmers religiously ran their advertising between shows, leaving the content of the shows uninterrupted. Would you ever see ads in such a world?
Yes !! In France for example, public television isn't allowed to cut shows with commercials, and private television is only allowed one cut/show. Both still make ton of money with commercials...
And those of us with complete brains will read the scholarly studies.
Seriously, folks, something has to be detailed enough for me to know whether or not I'll be interested in it before I go check it out. "563 lively book reviews on all subjects" is way too general to pique my interest, not to mention the fact that 563 is way too few to cover "all subjects". But I would certainly be interested in finding out what kind of horrific working conditions exist in other parts of the world, and where this stuff is going on.
Banner ads work like impulse shopping. If I go to the supermarket for a quart of milk, and on the way to the dairy department I see a plain opaque box with the word "SNACK" written on it, the chances that I'll throw it in the cart are nil. But if I spot the brand-new taco-flavored Fritos, I might give them a try, because I already have enough information (I know what a taco is, and I've eaten Fritos before) to become interested in it.
-Chris
<musing>
It occurs to me that banner ads on a search engine are probably doomed to failure anyway: if a visitor comes in specifically looking for topic $foo, they're not gonna care about advertisement $bar. People using the web have notoriously short attention spans -- or I do, anyway :). Most of the time, they aren't likely to allow themselves to be distracted by an ad (or the link beyond it) unless it happens to be *really* close to what they're looking for in the first place. And even then, if I'm searching for e.g. "mistadobalina" and I happen to be shown an ad for Del Tha Funkee Homosapien's home page, I'm going to be skeptical about clicking on it out of fear that that site just wants me to buy something, even if that would otherwise be the exact site I'm looking for.
</musing>
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I have to say this is totally true with me also. It seems you can't go to a site anywhere these days without getting bombarded by X10 popup ads. They're especially sneaky as they don't popup in the foreground, they popup in the background. I don't think website designers realize how much control they give to advertisers by allowing them to do popup ads. I recently was on namezero and their advertisement popup'd up a popup ad, that pop up'd another pop up ad, which pop up'd another pop up ad which was porn. It was totally unbelieveable... it was like the slippery slope of slime. Good site popups annoying site popups bad site popups sick site. Argh. I can't wait until mozilla has the feature to stop popup windows...
The web is becoming way too entrenched in ads. This guys experiment in microads may have failed, but may have chosen poor keywords or uneffective wording. Personally, I know I MUCH more likely to click on a micro-ad. Micro-ads tend to represent what I am looking for. I would say google.com gets about %10 click-through on me, and that is WAY higher than any other site.
I really think very macro ads are really shooting themselves in the foot. I think that online advertisers are starting to forget something even more important than click-through -- brand recognition. In the case of X10, I now dispise their brand. I was planning on buying several hundred dollars of wireless security stuff from there, but they can forget it now. I wouldn't trust them with my credit card number.
I think the big players in advertising -- not other websites -- should start looking at the web more seriously for brand recognition. Really internet advertising is very cheap for the number of impressions especially if the ad is very tasteful. However, I think the annoying flash, popup, multiple banner ads are making online ads undesireable for brand recognition. They are doing nothing more than annoying the customer. Could you imagine on TV if commercials would begin to overlay the current TV show? During the commercial break if the screen broke up into a 3x3 grid of individual ads with their sounds overlapping. This is much like advertisement on the net today. It won't work.
Ian
I'd disagree with your conclusion. The most effective TV commercials might be entertaining ones, but remember that most people's goal when watching television is to be entertained. Web sites vary, but most of the ones I see emphasize information more than they emphasize entertainment. If I'm reading the web looking for stuff to read, even if it's fun reading material, I'm more likely to click through ads that seem to match my current goal than I am to click on ads that are funny.
The best advertisements are the ones that make the viewer think "look at that! yes, this is what I want". Exactly what will make a viewer think this depends on how well you match your ad to the viewers frame of mind.
The thing about TV commercials is that their success isn't measured by how many people run out and buy the product being advertised. It's a "mindshare" kind of thing. This whole click-through idea needs to be rethought...
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
By the way....
You've hit the nail squarely on the side. :-)
Most of advertising in any media is designed for one thing: Brand name recognition and Pavlovian conditioning. (OK, that's two things)
In the big North American cities, there are pages of classified ads that have nothing but companies' names. That's an attempt at fostering name recognition (probably a pretty lousy one, but dirt cheap). TV ads are usually funny or sexy skits with heavy product placement. Does that tell you _anything_ about the product? No, but it equates fun or sex with the product in some basal part of your brain, and when you go shopping for whatever it is, that association might tweak you into buying their product over the competition's.
Of course, TV and radio ads like this don't work as soon as you start thinking about what you want to buy. Guess what? People don't think about what they want to buy! Ads like this are enormously successful, no matter how little they say about the product.
The problem with web ads was one of perception. The web is all about linking and clicking, and for some reason the advertisers thought that they could measure interest in their ads (and thus efficacy) by counting clicks. Lo and behold, nobody clicks on the damned ads! At first it looked like web advertising was a bust, but in fact, they're now learning that people don't like traditional media ads any better than web ads, and wouldn't watch them voluntarily either. Now they're discovering the final result: Web banners work, and work in exactly the same way as traditional ads. Name recognition and mood association are just as annoying and effective no matter what the medium; and conversely, 'customer participation' (i.e. clicking through) is equally unlikely and irrelevant no matter what the medium.
So get used to the ads, because they're not going anywhere.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
There was an excellent article at Suck.com last month, pointing out one simple fact:
Banner ads probably do workThe problem has been [to loosely paraphrase] that the companies selling and managing banner ads thought that advertising on the Internet would be different from advertising in other media.
Unfortunately, they're wrong. The clickthrough rates are low, sure. But how often does an ad for, say, jeans, make you head out and buy them [the rough equivalent of a 'click-through']?
Ads are designed to get you to remember the product when you're heading out to buy products, thereby establishing brand recognition and making you more likely to choose that manufacturer's product over the hundred or so nearly identical competing brands'.
Just because it's a new medium doesn't mean we've changed that much, and as the article points out, with the cultural recognition of that damned monkey, it could probably sell us just about anything.
Larsal
Banner ads aren't totally dead. T.V. commercials have found people don't want the mundain information, they want to be entertained. Banner ads just need to be reformatted and reborn.
All your bases are belong to us!
Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the most obviously distressing point of the article: the sites designed with the most consistency (the most usable content) were the worst for advertising.
Doesn't this just underscore what everyone already knows, that annoying advertising gets results because people pay attention to it? Imagine a world where television programmers religiously ran their advertising between shows, leaving the content of the shows uninterrupted. Would you ever see ads in such a world? Wonderfully usable sites such as Google, although conforming to Jakob Nielsen's design ideas, don't create enough ruckus around their ads to create a reliable advertising medium. Television, on the other hand, has awful ads all through its content, with varying ad lengths and spot times to keep the user in his/her seat, expecting the content to return at any minute.
The funny paradox here is that TV continues to attract viewers, even with such practices, while sites that attempt to conform to a more television-like advertising standard merely run off their users. Personally, I believe that this is primarily due to a comparatively higher level of sophistication on the part of web users (say all you want...at least we can turn on the computer, right?); if the web is ever saturated with the masses that TV attracts, then the ad model could well change to the more annoying TV-style (Sign of the apocalypse, btw...), where sites that are inconsistent, confusing, or otherwise forcing the user to see the ads can create a revenue stream based on the ad.
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
Luckily there are lots of other places to get X10 gear. Check Smarthome to start with.
I almost never patronize x10.com.
Actually there is just such a way to keep quality sites up. People paying for ad campaings on sites are not just the only ones that can keep them alive, you can too. Consider it a bit like 'paying to get no banner ads tagged onto your email', only that it`s not email and that now you are expressing an appreciation or need for the content. By simply donating money to services you are fond of, people can donate money to sites they want to keep up and banner free for isntance.
Reflecting on this a bit, the problem with these kind of thing is that this model can`t work because individual payment is an uncoordinated and crude event. You can`t possibly go about and give every good site your money, and the effect you try to resort might be disproportional to what you had in mind. So maybe it`s time to build something like support.org, an organisation you are free to donate money to and which you can instruct to support a certain company with that money up to a certai degree. You can of course consult previous efforts in that direction.. the support.org runs by voting on policy issues, and those who donate cna vote and suggest policy changs. Seems like to me like a nice idea to help and sustain Open Source Projects.
Flaws? Comments?
With great power comes great electricity bills.
The fact that this guy spent less (i.e., smaller media buy) doesn't make this some new form of advertising.... and it's not like every advertiser doesn't run their own metrics to determine efficacy.
The test of a successful campaign is to define the acceptable cost per unit of acceptable result (results may range from "improve awareness by 1%" to "sell 1 unit of product"). Then determine if the advertisement delivered those results at or below acceptable cost.
Not sure how this "experiment" was deemed a failure... was there an expectation in advance about how many clickthroughs the Google ad should deliver per impression? A roughly 1% clickthrough rate is quite decent, by the standards of this industry, and the CPM he describes is quite reasonable, as well.
all I have to say is,
X10 can bite me! long ago I had planned on experimenting with X10 controls in my future house (which doesn't exist yet), but I'm so sick of their flipping popup ads that I'm not buying anything from them ever.
I wonder if the their ad department has considered how many potential customers they may be running off with their damned annoying (and obviously sexually suggestive) ads for their stupid little camera.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
RobotWisdom, OTOH will tend to have a fairly well defined audience just like /. does. That audience will tend to be interested in the stuff that is put up there and are more likely to click through. I'm particularly talking about when the ad became a normal weblog item, but even when it was prefaced by Paid Link: it still appears much like a normal item. Also it seems that the guy running RobotWisdom has a fairly strict policy on ads, which will help because his audience will know that. Slashdot benefits from the same high level of targeting: /. is just about the only site I've clicked ads on in the last few years (I don't even look at the ads on other sites).
But despite these issues there are valid points to be taken from this experiment. In particular I think it indicates that targeted advertising is more effective (but that's already well known), and also the less 'ad-like' an ad is the more likely someone is to click through it. Of course if it becomes too deceptive it wont impress people looking for information who instead find themselves in a store.
Does advertising work? It depends on what you want it to achieve.
I don't see anyone challenging the viability of print, television, or radio ads. But I can't remember a single time when I saw something advertised, dropped everything I was doing, and ran out immediately and bought that item.
So why is it that you expect that I'm going to buy something just because I see a link to it from some webpage I'm visiting?
I also don't buy products in order to reward them for sponsoring a content provider I happen to like. Advertisers think they subsidize popular entertainment, which
If I buy something, I buy it because I need it or because I want it and also because I know it exists. Advertising can't tell me if I need something. Most advertising does a lousy job in telling me why I should want something. Aside from infomercials, most advertising these days doesn't try to tell me why I should want something at all. But one thing that advertising does a pretty good job of is letting me know that some product exists.
Advertisers should also know that the world was saturated with advertising and people clamoring for my money long before the internet ever came into existance, and simply providing more room for advertising via the invention of cyberspace won't give me any more dollars in my wallet to spend on stuff. I'm already spending at the highest rate that I can sustain with my income. You've got to learn that there's a such thing as diminishing returns.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9709a.html
For a more in-depth analysis (and a better test program) I recommend reading Jakob Nielsen's columns on web usability, starting with one specifically about web-based advertising.
Here's the URLs:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9709a.html
I have read that the very first commercial jingle (for gum, as I recall) was carefully timed to some 10 seconds -- long enough to be memorably irritating, but not quite long enough to get up and turn the radio dial.
This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander
Here's a sample of what your average 'blog will look like by the end of the Summer:
I can't imagine sites pimping misleading links. But it could happen.
The problem with the experiment is that the ads contained different text, and the author even identifies this in his analysis.
His Google ad was very specifically oriented towards one book review; his RobotWisdom ad geared toward numerous reviews. THe expectations of users seeing the link then passing through the link would be radically different, and not surprisingly give his RobotWisdom ad the edge.
If they had both been geared toward the site overall, I'd believe that the results were valid. Instead, I have to question what factor really resulted in the difference in clickthroughs. This has made me want to run my own experiment with my own site, but being more careful about the wording of the two ads.
Beware typoes.
The biggest problem with click-through ads is that they are countable. This is why the advertising industry is pulling their advertising. They see a low number of click-throughs, and a low number of purchaces on click-throughs. So they can see the low response to their adds. They are more willing to spend their money on tv adds where they cant as readily see they are wasting money.
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Having worked for 2 different failed dot BOMBS that were based on an advertisment business model, I think its safe to say that advertisment online has been grossly overestimated regardless of how you approach it.
For years there has been a difference in how advertisers approached their buyers. INFOMERCIALS go for the BUY NOW OR MISS OUT. Coca-Cola goes for the NAME NAME NAME. When you think softdrink think COKE. BUD WEIS EERRRRR...etc.
Thus far none of pure dot coms(not the brick and mortar that have a website to back them up) companies have found a way to breech that gap.
The only way I see anything changing online is for the "permission based marketing" to take over. Example: You know I am interested in puchasing a product because in a survey etc I told you so. You are partnered with a company that sells or distributes that product. You send me an ad because I told you that you could and its a product I am wanting more infomation on. Past that its a dark deep bottomless money pit that ALOT of venture capital money helps make deeper and darker.
Razzious Domini
Razzious Domini
I could be a GREAT KARMA WHORE if I could just shed the few morals I have left.
I've been [ADV: Enjoy Coca Cola!] making a decent [ADV: You'll Love the New Lexus LS430'] living for six months now just by posting [ADV: WASSUUUUPPP!!!!???] micro-ads on public forums.
/. makes me want stuff from ThinkGeek. Especially "performance drinks" with stupid names like Whoop Ass. And mice. Really nice mice.
But only because I come day after day, and see exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in. I don't need to see it for long, but I need to see it ten or twenty times.
Not that I buy the crap, I just want it. But if it was something in my fridge, that I knew and liked, I'd probably go grab one. Something like that could easily skew my Coke:Coffee ratio (there's one for something other than coffee, I think it's one of those performance drinks I want, that shows a bunch of coffee cups and makes me want coffee). Why the hell aren't "Coca-Cola" banners all over the web like everywhere else? OTOH, there the generic problem: when I see Coke, I just want cola, it's all the same fizzy sweet stuff with caffeine (I still think they ruined the drink when they took the cocaine out of it).
BTW, one thing that really, really pisses me off is click-through ads that change with every reload. I navigate quickly, so usually, an ad that interests me only registers after I can't see it any more. I hit "back" and the ad is gone. I hit reload 3 or 4 times, and if the ad doesn't come up again, I go on with what I was doing (they should have "show me the last ad" links, or "show all ads in current rotation").
Incidentally, I usually miss anything animated. I expect certain sites I like to have ads I like, so I glance at the ads. Once. If I don't see anything informative in the frame that's up (such as "40 gb harddrive: $100 Shipping included!" or "Babes in bikinis, talking about sports."), they don't get another frame to convince me. I've long since learned not to bother watching after an "intriguing" frame.
Hmm. Looking back at the first paragraph... now I associate ThinkGeek with ass+mice, and from there to a story that starts "The real mistake was when I lit a match to see up the cardboard tube..."
--
The article points out that the pages displaying the ads were so well organized (or at least consistant) that users of the pages didn't look around very much, they didn't see the ads in other words.
... good. The ads obviously weren't crafted into the content model of either service, just grafted on top, so I'd say the article provides a huge kudos to the site designers.
/.
Well,
The higher questions are, what kind of site *should* host ads, how can advertising be incorporated into the content in such a way as to be visable, interesting, and attractive to users of the site.
Thank god I don't know the answer, otherwise I'd be upstairs in marketing instead of reading
Nietzsche on Diku:
sn; at god ba g
:Backstab >KILLS< god.