Yes, we have Google ads here in the blog
We received a complaint today about an ad that appeared here in the blog.
The ad is offensive, one reader told us via comment, e-mail, and phone call, plus a broadcast via Twitter.
I’m not so sure I agree. The ad is for the World Journalism Institute, a New York-based organization that advocates for Christian journalists in mainstream media:
Not a viewpoint that I particularly advocate, being rather agnostic myself. But neither do I have any problems with it.
In fact, I think it’s just peachy that there’s a group out there looking out for Christian journalists, just like there are groups that look out for black journalists, Asian journalists, college journalists, photojournalists, visual journalists and so on.
They’re all special interest groups, within the umbrella of journalism. And that’s good.
Now, the ad that caused our reader such angst today was a Google ad. Surely we’re all familiar with how Google ads work. You contract with Google which then looks for contextural keys upon which to select an ad in its database to push onto your page.
As much as we’d love to keep VizEds advertising-free, the simple reality is that we can’t do it. VizEds is a nonprofit, but don’t think of it as a huge organization with administrative staffers and webmasters. VizEds, really, is just one guy — Robb Montgomery — who pays for all this stuff out of his pocket.
Which is why I don’t get paid to blog. I do it as a service to the visual journalism community. Robb uses Google ads to take a little of the pressure off his pocketbook. I don’t begrudge him that at all.
Naturally, though, it occasionally takes us places we don’t want to go. I’m not overjoyed to see the ads that pop up here, every day, for teeth-whiteners, weight-loss plans and web-based colleges. But that’s what it takes to bring you the news.
The worst one? A month or so ago, I pulled up part of my Manila travelogue from a couple of years ago in order to send someone the link. Imagine my chagrin when I found this Google ad:
Now that bothered me. Robb did what he could to make sure that ad wouldn’t appear again. Hopefully, none of you ever saw it. Until now.
And, for the most part, Robb’s tweaking has helped. Most of the time, our readers have something like this pushed to them:
Fairly innocuous stuff, we hope. Helpful, at best. At worst, still harmless.
If anyone has taken offense at the World Journalism Institute ad, I can only apologize. I had immediately asked Robb to remove the ad, but the more I think about it, the less certain I am that the ad shouldn’t run.
If any ad you see here in the blog doesn’t interest you, then — by all means — pass it by. Just like you’d pass by the automotive classifieds in your newspaper, if you’re not in the market for a car. Or the women’s clothing “doorbuster” sales circular if you don’t wear women’s clothing.
If you don’t want to see Google or banner ads here — or anywhere else, for that matter — consider adding a banner adblock to your browser.
But calling and insulting me on the phone is hardly necessary. Any professional journalist should be quite capable of insulting me via e-mail.
Hey, here’s an idea! Why not sponsor the blog? Because VizEds is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, you can sponsor this very blog and write it off on your taxes.
If you’d like to know more, contact Robb here.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
OTHER UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
SEC. 2000e-3. [Section 704]
(b) Printing or publication of notices or advertisements indicating prohibited preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination; occupational qualification exception
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or joint labor-Âmanagement committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including onÂ-the-Âjob training programs, to print or publish or cause to be printed or published any notice or advertisement relating to employment by such an employer or membership in or any classification or referral for employment by such a labor organization, or relating to any classification or referral for employment by such an employment agency, or relating to admission to, or employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or other training by such a joint laborÂ-management committee, indicating any preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination, based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except that such a notice or advertisement may indicate a preference, limitation, specification, or discrimination based on religion, sex, or national origin when religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I don’t know who Mr. Jacobson is or the extent of his expertise in constitutional law, but I’m fairly certain the Civil Right Act of 1964 didn’t anticipate (and therefore was never intended to extend to) pop-up Web ads in 2009. Geez, I had to open MS Explorer (which I detest) to even see any pop-ups (who in 2009 doesn’t use some kind of ad blocker anyway?). And honestly, I don’t see how a pop-up ad dealing with a non-surgical spinal compression center in North Carolina has anything to do with the Civil Rights Act?? You see, that’s the ad that popped up on my computer, not the one that Mr. Jacobson saw. Which tells me that the Google program placing the ads on this blog — and countless others — is pretty much out of the the blog writer’s control. Heck, is there ANYTHING that Google does that’s in our control? While I’m not a journalist, I work in the media industry (marketing comm firm) and know enough about how Google ads work to know Charles in 100 percent accurate. Few blogs and sites can control the precise ads that Google places on them, so most of us just learn to ignore the ones we don’t like.
And geez, it sounds like Charles moved to have whatever the ad was removed as soon as someone complained, so why beat a deceased Appaloosa? The Web 2.0 world in which we all find ourselves in pretty much like the Wild West. Witness what happened to Domino’s not two weeks ago. They took a few hours to consider how to investigate and respond to a one isolated incident by stupid, stupid prank by two stupid, stupid twits (in my home state, let me add), and suddenly the store owner is nearly out of business and the company was pilloried by media around the world. And Domino’s learned about this from a customer who let them know as a courtesy.
Seems to me that kind of professional courtesy is what we all should consider practicing when see Web content that might be objectionable. The Web can be a very dangerous place, and I’m a firm believer that we need to be careful more often than many of us are not to cast stones when all the facts might not be clear. I’ve come to believe the advice my Dad gave me years ago: what goes around comes around so be smart about what you send around.
Just my $0.02.
May 3rd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
You’re shitting me, right? I’ve got Spongebob, the Burger King and dancing chicks shaking their square asses at me during children’s tv programs … but this is offensive! GD!!!!
Alan, old buddy, take it easy.
May 3rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
This blog is so controversial these days.
=)
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
The passage posted by Alan applies only to employers. It is titled “Other Unlawful Employment Practices.”
Neither the blog nor Visual Editors is an employer. So why would that section apply here?
Am I missing something?
And if VizEds and Charles are employers, where do I get my paycheck??
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Charles
Maybe if you spent more time cleaning your junk out of the guest bedroom and less time on the internet you wouldn’t always be in the hot seat.
May 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
So Charles, you don’t use a wife-blocker? Just curious.
And when can the rugby team use the guest bedroom?
May 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I’m not offended by it. And I’m a Jew. I know you’re not advocating it.
I’m getting my masters right now in marketing communications, and I’m actually in a new media class this semester. Most online ads today are targeted according to hot words in a post. Don’t know why a Christian journalist association showed up with Pearls Before Swine, but the robots at Google probably picked up on “journalism.”
Click-through ads actually have a high ROI, compared to banners and other forms of online advertising.
Think of it this way: if the ad was from Hobby Lobby wishing you a Happy Easter with a quote from Scripture and it appeared in your newspaper, and you didn’t like it, would you throw the newspaper away? Probably not. Although you may think twice about shopping at Hobby Lobby.
Same here: Charles isn’t advocating for this organization. It just happened to appear below his post. It’s the fine line between advertising and editorial. Get over yourself.
May 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Seriously?
PS. I’m offended by the Captcha word. It’s “Mortised” and I think Mortising is a horrendous design practice. I’m never reading this newspaper — err, blog again. Until tomorrowish around the same bat time.