Commentary

Adfellas

In his recent book, Jeff Jarvis asked “What Would Google Do?” Google asks, “What would Junior Soprano do?”

One of the cleverer gambits to avert the utter collapse of the media economy is the experiment by Google called Contributor. It enables users (so far by invitation only, but soon to open to the public) to block ads on their favorite Web sites by instead paying small sums a la carte for the content. And it does so with the ultimate nod to the free market… with maybe just a hint of the black one.

It’s easy to understand why previous micropayment schemes failed to take hold: 1) they tend to be cumbersome, 2) the cost of processing micropayments typically exceeds the face value of the transaction, and 3) people like micro, but not as much as they like zero. Free is a very popular price.

Of course, free isn’t really free; in the content marketplace, someone is always left holding the bag -- mainly exploited contributors, legacy media companies bleeding retained earnings and venture capitalists betting on the come that seldom comes. But, Google pondered: what if a month’s worth of micropurchases were prepaid in a modest chunk, like a Metro fare card -- thus reducing transaction costs -- and the micropayer were to enjoy not just content but a less ad-riddled experience?

advertisement

advertisement

Instead of, say, Ken Fisher’s 99 newsletter come-ons or some sleazy Taboola clickbait, users are served a picture of (naturally) a kitten. 

That’s the offer of Google Contributor. But here’s the wrinkle: the price you pay to see the kitty (or a simple “thank you” message) instead of an ad is the price an advertiser would have paid for that very space. Without being aware of it, Contributor users inject themselves in the hidden world of real-time ad auctions. Their winning (automated) bids, debited from their fixed monthly contributions, buy freedom from Ken Fisher, or LowerMyBills.com or that pair of Uggs they looked at on Amazon in February and has been stalking them across the Web ever since.

One way to look at it is as a win-win: users get a nicer experience without stiffing publishers, in the unfortunate way that popular ad-blocking software does. And they cease to be moochers, replacing the advertiser subsidy penny for penny. 

Of course, it’s not a panacea for the media economy, because there is no additional revenue to publishers. Also, there’s an altogether different way of looking at Contributor:

“Hey, you have a nice place here. It would be a shame if some misfortune were to befall it, like a fire…or weight-loss advertising. Pony up.” 

Yes, the shakedown model. Your monthly Contributor contribution takes cash out of the till to buy protection from Madison Avenue. This is the media world we live in: third parties coming in to impose order amid chaos.

And chaotic it is. Digital revolution has played havoc with supply and demand, audiences haven’t so much fragmented as atomized, and piracy and DVRs and fraud have ravaged what’s left of the business models. Across the country, newspapers are shrinking to the size of the flimsy supplements that once were stuffed inside. Magazines are folding like rug stores. Cable is dying the death of 1000 cord-cuts. Hollywood is making the same comic-superhero movie over and over in (I think we’re up to, what, 6-D?), until the last Shanghai teenager has had his fill. As for the record business -- it has ceased to be either.

For years, I’ve been writing about denial and delusion. But if you squint your eyes a certain way, you can see the emergence of certain familiar means of finding opportunity amid chaos. Where certain established structures collapse, others have always filled the vacuum. In the post-apocalyptic media environment, Britain’s The Telegraph takes a cut from bookies. Hundreds of publishers of easy virtue run “native advertising,” which prostitutes their trust for a few cheap clicks. And now, like some badly dressed Bensonhurst mooks, Google plays bagman.

Like I said, you have to squint. The real ad crime is online bot fraud, malware, etc., costing marketers billions. And I have absolutely no doubt that Contributor was conceived with only altruistic intentions.

But ain’t it funny what instincts kick in when the established order starts breaking down? Squint your eyes just a little bit more. Think of rackets muscling into legitimate businesses and busting them out. Now think: Facebook.  

7 comments about "Adfellas".
Check to receive email when comments are posted.
  1. Douglas Ferguson from College of Charleston, July 6, 2015 at 9:34 a.m.

    I need a better explanation why I need to pay to block ads when AdBluckPlus is already free. It seem clear that TiVo owners are not compelled to feel guilty about skipping video ads, but somehow online consumers are "stiffing" publishers when they block the ads? Why the double standard?

  2. Mark Van Patten from Retired, July 6, 2015 at 12:27 p.m.

    No Agenda podcast with Adam Curry and John C Dvorak uses The NPR/ church model. Listen to episode 200.7 or http://dvorak.org/na/
    They refer to donators as Executive Producers and Associate Producers, with recognition of regular contributors leading all the way to Knighthood, with rings and certificate of Knighthood.

  3. Jaffer Ali from PulseTV, July 6, 2015 at 12:36 p.m.

    Bob, the greatest "secret" in the media environment (especially online) is the AMOUNT of supply. Try finding out how many trillions of pageviews are served monthly... Also, try locating how much unsold ad space exists. All trades and research fraudsters measure demand, not supply.

    Then see what media owners are doing to maintain ridiculous TV CPMs...Getting into Big Data, another fraudster methodology. Check out Yeats, "Second Coming": http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html

  4. Glenn Jewett from Services1223, July 6, 2015 at 2:15 p.m.

    This is as good a day as any to quote a line from the Gateful Dead, "sometimes you get shone the light, in the strangest of places... if you look at it right." A great article, again. You've become one of those emails I actually look forward to each week.

    Of course that signals a self confirmation cognitive bias, so we share that somewhat cynical squint at causation and effect, so pardon a succinct answer to the comment question "why pay to block ads?" The answer is, "Never bet against convenience." 

    The Google "Opt Out" button has been a feature for nine months now. How many people actually use it? Not many.It hasn't slowed the amount of personally identifiable data being scraped, mined, warehoused and sold. 

    It's true that Analytics is free but it was introduced to facilitate the increased usage of Adwords.

    The introduction of advanced analytics, for "free",turned "big data" into a commodity. Bypassing the rigors of traditional SEO, the local, small business unable to achieve "page one" search results could now purchase a piece of that "page one" real estate. They could get an "impression". Maybe. 

    Briefly, the Internet had been perceived as "free". Companies had cut back on print, radio and television ad spend, but exposure wasn't as assured as Neilson certified viewership reports or publishers verified subscription lists and some of that ad spend was syphoned to boost SEO. Gradually, the realization spread that there were only ten organic search results on page one of Google and practically speaking only the ones in the "first fold" mattered anyway.

    As each succesive promising horizon fades from view ever more complex and slightly more costly remedies have cropped up, promising to "level the playing field", yet never quite making "The Little Shop Around The Corner" competitive with their own "Fox Books" nemesis. Local listings, semantic search and relevance to query models now abound but triumph for the small business remains an elusive mirage in the distance.

    It doesn't or shouldn't be hard to see the beauty of Contributor, by injecting the consumer into the Adwords bidding process, the cost of a "click" will rise and the Adwords publishers will simply have to pay more for that coveted impression. As Ralph Bellemy so eloquented stated, "The good part is no matter if our clients make or lose money, Duke & Duke gets their commission." 

    To close this out, if installing a "free" program like AdBlockPlus gives you comfort install it, but even the choice to download that useful bit of software becomes another incremental tidbit of your personalized profile and "Duke & Duke" will get their commission.

  5. Paula Lynn from Who Else Unlimited, July 6, 2015 at 3:58 p.m.

    One day, someone important may work their way back to the future of media means those ads cost too much for nothing. As Romeo said,"Mercucio, you speak of nothing." We are only killing ourselves.

  6. David Vawter from Doe-Anderson, July 6, 2015 at 5:52 p.m.

    So how will the yoof of the world learn about the newest coolest sneaker?  How will our moms and wives learn about the latest and greatest way to remove ring around the collar?  How will Chrysler bludgeon us with their most up-to-the-minute trenchant outsider's insight into what isn't more American than America?  How will people extinguish the flame in their pockets that is the desire to spend their hard-earned money?


  7. nigel carr from tombras group, July 7, 2015 at 11:59 a.m.

    cool piece of writing as always, bob garfield.
    logical + smart idea from goog--so kudos to them too.
    but it would be a lot cooler if publishers saw some of the money.
    o yeah, & then there's the lying thing:
    doesn't the name "contributor" kinda imply that publishers ARE seeing some of the money.
    won't "contributors" get pissed when they realise their money goes to goog, not to the publisher?
    lying only works in politics goog: didn't your friends in dc tell you that? 

Next story loading loading..
About the Author

Bob Garfield, former editor at large for MediaPost, is a long-time public radio personality who currently hosts Booksmart Studios' "Bully Pulpit" podcast. A 30-plus-year commentator on media and marketing, he is co-host of public radio's Peabody Award-winning “On the Media” program; senior fellow at Wharton Future of Advertising Program, SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management; founder of the Media Future Summit and author of five books.