Slashdot Mirror


Google Ads for RSS Feeds Goes Beta

flood6 writes "Google has launched their service to offer contextual ads via their AdSense program through RSS feeds. The program is currently in Beta but will allow webmasters who offer RSS feeds of their content to include ads in the feeds (which often appear on other websites or through aggregators); someone clicks on the ad, the owner of the feed makes a little scratch."

43 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. Extensions quickly please! by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they're going to start contaminating my Live Bookmarks with bloody adverts, I hope it won't be long before Adblock can cover RSS feeds as well as web pages. . .

    --
    So.. it has come to this
    1. Re:Extensions quickly please! by zerbot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Damn all ads! Bandwidth is free and those schmucks don't deserve to get paid for their sucky content (even though I like it enough to check it every day).

    2. Re:Extensions quickly please! by NightSpots · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It actually looks like they're suggesting * that people include the AdSense javascript at the end of the full text article in the feed, rather than inserting advertising links within the links/list of articles itself.

      Slightly less annoying. Only slightly.

    3. Re:Extensions quickly please! by clovercase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      for those that jump on the adblock bandwagon, i hope you are realizing a long term effect of your behavoir. publishing good content costs money, and many sites are funded via adsesne. if you keep blocking ads publishers will either stop publishing or start making money in a different way.

      whether you realize it or not, adsense is the first mainstream micropayment system. with the proliferation of ad blocking comes the next gen internet when you have to pay 5 cents to view some page etc. are targeted text ads really that annoying?

    4. Re:Extensions quickly please! by Orion+Blastar's+Psyc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It just gets annoying after a while to see all the adds in your favorite RSS feed. Won't this just make people unsubscribe or use a RSS reader than filters out the ads?

    5. Re:Extensions quickly please! by Blue+Stone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Except that Google's ads are no longer *guaranteed* to be non-intrusive and non-distracting.

      The moment I saw google serving up adverts in the style of those fake system warning messages, was the day everything from */pagead/* got squished by my adblock filter.

      They've only got themselves to blame.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    6. Re:Extensions quickly please! by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      if you keep blocking ads publishers will either stop publishing or start making money in a different way

      That's why on all (yes, all) the web pages I regularly visit, I pay for a subscription where the option is available. Even when it doesn't actually benefit me in the slightest.

      I pay for Slashdot, LinuxQuestions, Userfriendly, I've donated to Mozilla, to Slackware, to the FSF, and various others as well. With the exception of seeing a /. story a few minutes before non-subscibers, I've not gained anything from handing over the cash that I couldn't have had free.

      So my conscience is perfectly clear about being on the 'adblock bandwagon', thank you very much.

      If web site owners don't LIKE adblocking, perhaps they should have thought of that before they got so damned obnoxious about shoving their flashing banners and popup adverts in our faces in the first place.

      --
      So.. it has come to this
    7. Re:Extensions quickly please! by ajs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why on earth would you adblock ads in an RSS feed? You don't care what's in the feed as long as adblock does its job when RENDERING any web page, regardless of how it got its data.

      Google ads don't bother me at all, since they're well structured, non-abusive text, but if you are bothered by them, adblock should do its thing without modification.

    8. Re:Extensions quickly please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As someone who has tried the honor system, let me tell you that you're part of a tiny minority. Even very unobtrusive ads in a low paying niche create more revenue than donations, at least for those of us who don't happen to operate one of the top 1% of all websites. That is true despite ad blockers and a notoriously click-shy target demographic of mostly Firefox users. Donations and subscriptions just don't cut it for the majority of webmasters.

    9. Re:Extensions quickly please! by stevey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not going to do it but ..

      I run a website which has articles on it, each article has one google advert on it.

      But relative to my article bandwidth the RDF feeds I host (which only contain the 'intro' to an article and a link to the full thing) consume something like 66% of my bandwith.

      When you have a lot of users each checking the feed through livebookmarks, KNewsticker, etc, that adds up quickly.

      Especially when they poll the feeds at regular, but essentially random, intervals.

      I know /. has a bit on their feed page saying clients will be banned if they poll too agressively, but sadly I've not got code to handle that yet.

      It is tempting to try to offset the cost of that bandwidth by using feed adverts - but I think the drawbacks outweight the benefits for now.

    10. Re:Extensions quickly please! by redeye69 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I find all adverts intrusive - from billboards to ads in RSS feeds, albeit on a different scale.

      I dont watch TV, and I dont listen to the radio. Part of the reason is because there'l very little worth watching and less worth listening to, but the main reason is because watching or listening to 5 minutes of a program then being bombarded with 5 or more minutes of adverts is extremely fucking annoying.

      The same applies to adverts online, whether it be on a webpage or in an RSS feed. They're an absolute intrusion, an invasion of personal space and are patronising.

      If I want to find information on the latest gizmos, health supplements, finance deals or whatever the fuck they're trying to sell me, I'll go looking for that specifically. I dont need it shoved in my face when Im reading my email or checking the latest tech stories online.

      Remember the whole point of ads.. they're trying to make you part with your cash. Dont be fooled into thinking they're trying to help you.... "oh hey you are reading a page with the word music on it, here why not buy one of these fucking gizmos"

      So, I wont ever feel guilty about using any and all means necessary to remove them from existance.

      --
      Without precision, my life would be imprecise....
    11. Re:Extensions quickly please! by Buran · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In 90% of Adsense 'installs', they look every bit as annoying as a banner. They disrupt the layout and keep my eye from scanning through to the text/info/photos on the page that I came to see. I came to read, not to have someone try to snooker me into buying shit I don't want.

    12. Re:Extensions quickly please! by generic-man · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because we all know

      ----
      ADS BY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE

      Buy "know" on eBay
      Find everything you need. Aff
      ebay.com

      Buy "firefox" on eBay
      Find everything you need! Aff
      ebay.com
      ----

      how well your average blog

      ----
      ADS BY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE

      Blogs? Good? Bad?
      Give opinion and win $50
      yourservey.com

      Buy "blog" on eBay
      The worlds biggest mktplace Aff
      ebay.com
      ----

      places Google's unobtrusive AdSense boxes.

      --
      For more information, click here.
  2. Worthless writeup by grazzy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Googles has released their adsense-program for RSS-feeds, its available to users with more than 100 subscribers.

    More info straight from google: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/05/feed-me.htm l

    Apply form: http://services.google.com/ads_inquiry/aff

  3. RSS ads? by BoldAC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashdot has RSS ads... but they also place the entire article listed on the site in the RSS feed. I can understand that a little better...

    However, listing in a typical RSS feed (with just titles and summeries) is dumb. It's like a porn site where you never know if you are going to click on something legit or an ad.

  4. Not Much to See Here by ultimabaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is simply pursuing one more avenue of content delivery for their advertisers. Those who wish to find ways to try and block the new ads should take note of one important thing, however: Google's ads are teeny, unintrusive, and even I find myself clicking on them often. Consider the repercussions of trying to block the RSS ads as equivalent to commercial skip on TiVO - advertisers pay for everything, and the deliverer of them makes less.

    I, for one, like to see Google make money.

  5. Dont know but... by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is what i really didnt want. As a content provider its great.. but unfortunately this time I'm both the content aggregator and content publisher. My site Newster.net aggregates news from RSS feeds and displays one news every 15 minutes. I'm sure in the coming weeks the news providers will have Ads in their RSS feeds (some already have and I had to remove them from my list to aggregate). So imagine if I use the Google Ads too. The end user will end up seeing the news headlines, the orignal news provider's ads, and my ads. Then to read the whole story they will visit the orignal site and again see tons of Ads.

    My point is to just read a news story Joe Sixpack will have to find his way through tons of Ads.

    1. Re:Dont know but... by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, Google recommends placing the ads at the very bottom, below the actual content. This might not be such a bad thing after all.

      --
      Clever signature text goes here.
    2. Re:Dont know but... by cluening · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I actually wrote my news aggregator as a direct response to ads - when Slashdot went off on its "ads and subscriptions" idea and Yahoo's front page turned into an ad-fest instead of an information source, I whipped that up to collect news for me. I guess I will just have to change it to remove links that check in with Google's ad server if I need to...

      --
      Posted from the wireless couch.
  6. How does this work by slim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A cursory browse through the links in the article, and a couple of clicks beyond, does not explain to me how this works.

    In the standard Adsense service, one puts a snippet of Javascript in one's pages, which the browser runs to fetch ads. The ads are targetted using what Google knows about the referrer URL, and the browser's IP address.

    I don't believe many RSS aggregators will do anything with embedded Javascript in an RSS feed, so how does Google add ads to a feed? Does this only work on feeds hosted by Google?

  7. GREAT!... by Splab · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Or not, its bloody annoying when people does stuff like that - try grabbing the slashdot rss feed - it will put in

    and tags into the feed which contains ads.
    Don't style the rss feed! If the links doesn't go to your site and you want ads, then don't offer the bloody feed!

  8. Re:Bleh by hkmwbz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "So much for 'Do no evil'"
    Eh? As I pointed out in another post, Google recommends placing the ads at the bottom, below the actual content.

    While ads can be annoying, Google is at least taking steps to make it "less evil". But you do realize that Google is an advertising company, don't you? Advertising is what they are getting revenues from. They are just trying to be responsible about it.

    --
    Clever signature text goes here.
  9. Beta? by richie2000 · · Score: 5, Funny
    The program is currently in Beta

    No, say it ain't so! A Google program that's in beta? I'm shocked!

    --
    Money for nothing, pix for free
  10. It's Official by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google is no longer a search engine/content delivery service. WE are now the product being sold by Google.

    Sure it's no different fro how television and radio stations make money, but I think we need to face the fact that Google now exists primarily to sell ads.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:It's Official by nb+caffeine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google exists to make money, like any other company. Simple as that, really.

      --

      "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys
    2. Re:It's Official by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think we need to face the fact that Google now exists primarily to sell ads.

      Is this not how it's always been? The primary reason for a company to exist is to make money. Google makes all it's money through ads, so obviously Google's primary objective is to sell ad space. Ad space is more valuable if more people see it, so if google continue to provide an excellent service then they will attract more people and make more money from the ads - everyone wins.

    3. Re:It's Official by shish · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's amazing is that the Slashdot crowd, many of whom are vigorously anti-advertising, has embraced Google and does not regard Google as evil.

      Google ads are simple text, and on-topic for the page that they're placed on, so I may actually be interested in what they're selling. Regular ads are painfully animated gifs, advertising stuff that I don't care about.

      Advertising isn't evil by nature, it's just been implemented poorly by 99% of advertising companies

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    4. Re:It's Official by skubeedooo · · Score: 2
      No, google exists primarily to make money. They do this by providing various services to the consumer (such as search) and selling ad space. I don't think anything has changed, has it?

      Saying that we are being sold by Google is a rather pointless (albeit emotional) statement. Google sell ADSPACE and provide a service. In what way is it more precise or more insightful to say that they are selling us?

  11. Re:Hahaha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Wait that made no sense. It must be because I haven't gotten much sleep recently.

    What I meant to say was that, YES FINALLY people who host news sites can make money off of RSS, so they will have a _legitimate_ reason to put up a RSS feed. This could be what makes RSS really, really widespread. It's great to see google backing this.

  12. And so the struggle continues by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Advertising on the Web (as much as I personally hate it) is a complicated thing. It does support web sites that allow their owners to continue providing good content in a timely manner. As a reader of sites, I appreciate this bargain. Of course I ignore the ads. That's a problem, so the advertisers got more aggressive to get my attention. So I blocked their ads because they were too intrusive.

    Now some sites become so weighed down by ads it's painful to look at the sites to try to read an article. Lots of "Next >>" links and blocks of flashy color in the middle of an article. Aaargh! Ah, so we escalate the battle by using the RSS feeds instead. Bliss! Just the news and nothing but the news!

    Escalation part deaux: They provide ads in the RSS feeds. Aaargh! We block the ads. They hire hit men to kill us -- ok, maybe we haven't reached that stage yet. But man, I sure get tired of this war of advertising. You'd think they'd catch on that those of us running screaming the other way from ads might not be the best audience for said ads. But no, they think that if they force feed their ads to us, Clockwork Orange style, we'll actually buy their hated products!

    And given the consumer bent of most people, they are sadly probably right.

    And for those webmasters who use advertising to survive, may the Force be with you. I understand the bargain you make, and I will still read your sites, and if you find a particularly clever and targeted ad, why I might even view it. It's a complicated issue.

    1. Re:And so the struggle continues by boomgopher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "And for those webmasters who use advertising to survive, may the Force be with you. I understand the bargain you make, and I will still read your sites, and if you find a particularly clever and targeted ad, why I might even view it. It's a complicated issue."

      I think if webmasters and ad creators would put a little thought into making ads look nice and not saturating a page with too many of them, I would have no problems with them, just as I have no problems with ads in magazines. If they blink, move rapidly, garish colors, etc. or heaven-forbid popup I'll ignore/block them in a heartbeat. Some ads (like IBM's flash ads come to mind) are well-designed, interesting, and aren't bad at all.

      I know the margins are small, but for goodness sakes use some common sense and get someone with some artistic talent to do this stuff...

      --
      Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    2. Re:And so the struggle continues by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a complicated issue

      Not really. Just ask yourself: would you rather pay those same sites to see the content without ads? If not, you either aren't that interested in the material, or you are willing to put up with the ads. There really aren't any other options (other than the content going away because the providers don't want to pay all that overhead and burn all that time as a charity to you, their loyal visitors).

      If we could just de-escalate back down to simpler text ads that you won't block, then we might be in good shape. The problem is that visitors have different levels of I/O. Some people respond to simple text ads, and some people literally don't notice things that aren't 460 pixels wide and flashing pictures of ducks. Even allowing for some understanding of a site's audience, it's hard to nail that sweet spot directly. So, you have to ask yourself how much you really value the content.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  13. Re:Jebus... by Soybean47 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Beta [not actually ready for widespread use / public consumption]

    Somebody's not really familiar with Google's definition of "Beta," I take it?

    It's news, because it will almost certainly affect people in the near future, because ads will start showing up in their RSS feeds. There weren't ads in RSS feeds before. See? News!
  14. Re:Jebus... by ergo98 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is news, how? ... Help me Jebus, this Google fixation has gone too far.

    Probably because a good percentage of the Slashdot community runs blogs/technology sites/whatever, and Adsense is one of the only small-player partners, giving them a minute amount of payback to help offset hosting fees and hassles. This isn't about an advertisement technique for use on CNN.com, but rather on "Joe's Kernel Rants", and thus it is apropos.

  15. just don't subscribe to it by namekuseijin · · Score: 2, Informative

    how are they supposed to throw ads down my throat if i don't subscribe to the damn feed?

    --
    I don't feel like it...
  16. How will this effect sites like Technorati? by DanCentury · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Technorati works by reading RSS feeds and then letting you search the feed item descriptions and content. Will Technorati end up being a minefield of Google ads? I assume they'll start parsing them out, and maybe banning feeds that use them. Maybe. Maybe not, since their profit model is based on Google ads as well.

    Google has banned some spam blogs from their seach listings, but really, what's the difference between a spam blog with an RSS feed that makes money with Google ads, and Google droping ads directly into a feed?

    Someone help my simple mind grok the difference.

  17. Click through ads by el_womble · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do companies on the web insist on click through ads? I can't click through on TV, Radio or Billboards and they've work fine for decades?

    A short message to increase brand awareness is often all thats needed.

    --
    Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
  18. Good thing by bigmurd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If this encourages more people to use RSS feeds, then that will be a good thing. As far as I know, google still haven't implemented a system to allow Advertisers to choose which site \ RSS feed they will be listed on. Until this happens, most users shouldn't have a problem with the Google system as there's no way for advertisers (apart from Google) to wield undue influence on the publishers.

  19. Call me when they have popups in RSS by s88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is great and all, but I'm not gonna use it until I can launch a popup through the RSS aggregator for my penis enlargement pills.

  20. Re:Bleh by Momoru · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First of all, I wasn't the original poster, and I don't think making money through advertising is evil. The fact that they are an advertising company does not make them evil. No more then I think a gun company is evil for selling guns. People want a product, a company provides a solution, thats fine. Its the specific intent of the product they design that makes it "evil". I don't see people like you defending DoubleClick...maybe doubleclick "suggests" that popup ads be used discretely and sparingly, but that doesn't keep people from flooding your browser with them. Google's "do no evil" mission statement has always revolved around making products that do not make the users of Google advertisements mad. But this, and other recent ideas have gotten further and further away from that.

    Furthermore, I don't understand why your responding to every negative post on this topic and defending Google...I can only guess that you must have a vested interest in Google or are a Google employee. If thats the case, why don't you just say so?

  21. Re:Hahaha by Wieland · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OTOH, for some people personalized ads could very well be about enlarging certain parts of their bodies...

  22. Does that defeat the purpose of RSS? by gremlins · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well I don't know about the rest of you but I use RSS as a souce of clean content to parse for a particular purpose. If they start adding in ads its going to culture up my nice clean data sources. I think that a better way to do this would be something like an email ad campaign opt-in. Where I would agree to get an email advertisement once and a while inexchange for a clean RSS feed.

    --
    just because your a schizophrenic doesn't mean people arn't really out to get you
  23. Google was relatively ad-free by alexhmit01 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Random point, but Google was founded as a technology company, built to design and license their technology to companies like Yahoo. Google.com WAS simply a proof of concept site, but as it grew as a destination and they changed their business model to be an ad channel.

    But originally, they were a technology company selling their tech/search results to media companies that would include the advertisements. Much like a studio that puts shows out in syndication... the local stations sell the ads, NOT the studio.

    Not that it matters much, but Google's primary objective WAS to have the best search results so the media companies would license it, now it is to use the search results to accumulate visitors to sell ads to.

    Alex