13 October 2009 @ 6:22PM >> Months before Barack Obama formally accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, the name “Obama” was already being stamped on or sewn into objects of every type, and these objects could be purchased just about anywhere you happened to be standing. Keychains, buttons, hats, t-shirts were all readily available. I saw Obama skateboards and heard rumors of Obama bongs. Eventually, companies usually seen selling things like pewter gnomes and porcelain kittens got into the game, hawking commemorative coins and Obama dinner plates on late-night cable shows. Video >>

14 July 2009 @ 9:11AM >> This weekend, while walking around NYC, I noticed a couple more propaganda posters put up by members of the Cult of Obama.

The first, “Siddhartha Obama,” is a large mural on the side of a building in Chelsea. It shows Obama as The Enlightened One holding solar panels, and features Dick Cheney popping out of a stars-and-stripes-painted Hummer and gas pumps bearing the Republican Party logo sitting atop coffins draped in American flags.

Whatever words you can use to describe these cult members, “subtle” is not one of them.

The second propaganda display was spotted inside the Blades board and skate store on Broadway near Great Jones. Adorned with pictures of Barack, Michelle and the campaign logo, it says simply, “Obey.”

“Siddhartha Obama” appears on a wall outside an art gallery, which is at least an understandable venue for over-the-top Obama worship; it’s almost a job requirement for artists that they be driven purely by emotion. The political naivete of assuming one politician will be Our Savior is the sort of thinking artists are almost expected to adopt.

But I find it strange that businesses keep attaching themselves to the Obama Cult, because in theory, they should want to minimize the number of customers they drive away with partisan propaganda.

And as Obama’s poll numbers continue to ease towards mediocrity, I suspect the use of religious-themed Obama imagery in corporate marketing will increasingly backfire.

Then again, in America today, as government takes over more and more companies and tightens regulatory control on the rest, customers matter less and less to companies.

“The customer is never wrong” is last century’s business maxim. Now, it’s “the government is never wrong.” So maybe companies are just making business calculations and deciding that it’s smart to make a public spectacle of their allegiance to Obama.

29 June 2009 @ 8:41AM >> PC World reports on a significant development in the evolution of new media:

A tectonic shift has taken place for the digital age: ad rates for popular shows like The Simpsons and CSI are higher online than they are on prime-time TV. If a company wants to run ads alongside an episode of The Simpsons on Hulu or TV.com it will cost the advertiser about $60 per thousand viewers, according to Bloomberg. On prime-time TV that same ad will cost somewhere between $20 and $40 per thousand viewers.

Online viewers have to actively seek out the program they want to watch, so advertisers end up with a guaranteed audience for their commercial every time someone clicks play on Hulu or TV.com. Online programs also have an average of 37 seconds of commercials during an episode, while prime-time TV averages nine minutes of ads.

David Poltrack, chief research officer at New York-based CBS, cited a Neilsen discovery that fewer online ads means viewers are twice as likely to remember a commercial they’ve seen on Hulu than on television, Bloomberg reported.

Despite higher ad rates, online viewing is not about to save television from declining ad rates and viewerships, because online sites like Hulu and TV.com do not yet have wide enough audiences to replace television viewers. Consider that 17.6 million people crowded around TV sets on April 6 to watch this year’s NCAA basketball championship, while online viewing for the entire March Madness tournament leading up to the championship game came to only 7.52 million viewers. The online audience simply isn’t there yet.

Even though the audience is small, higher online ad rates for The Simpsons means the digital ceiling has been broken. In the future, as more people gravitate toward on-demand Internet viewing, it’s entirely possible sites like Hulu and TV.com might, just might, replace traditional television viewing.

It’s interesting to note that sites like Hulu and TV.com are becoming successful simply by dusting off an old format and making it more palatable for online audiences. Instead of loading up shows with commercials, just throw in a few ad spots here and there. Instead of running shows at a specific time, put them online for a limited run and let people enjoy them at their leisure.

Reviving an old format is exactly what Apple did with the iTunes Store, an another online success story. Instead of going for subscriptions or some other newly-thought-out pay format, Apple just did away with the physical store, while still selling people something they could take home — a digital file instead of a CD or LP. There are some who object to buying digital music, since some prefer the tactile feel of having an album with cover art and liner notes. The quality of sound you get from digital files versus a CD has also been pointed out as a drawback. But the success and widespread adoption of the iTunes Store shows that a large segment of people are happy with Apple’s digital retail model.

31 December 2008 >> Just days before Barack Obama was elected president, Pepsi unveiled a new logo. According to some, the updated logo bears a striking resemblance to Obama’s campaign logo. Wonkette said it was “what would happen if a can of Tab had sex with Barack Obama.”

To me, the notion that Pepsi would consciously mimic the Obama logo seems like a bit of a stretch. Considering how fickle poll numbers can be, why would a major mass-market brand risk being seen as promoting a particular politician? Nobody in politics remains popular forever.

But when I left work Monday evening, I saw something that made me wonder if I my assumptions were wrong.

You see, my office is in Times Square, where advertisers are revving up for the millions of people who will see tonight’s New Year’s Eve festivities.

And directly across the street from my office, at the base of the building where a crystalline sphere counts down the final seconds of every year, Pepsi placed a sign that looked familiar:

In case your memory wasn’t jogged by the photo above, here’s a hint:

If Pepsi is invoking Obama’s campaign materials deliberately—and I have no reason to believe that they are—then maybe the folks behind it see some business sense in doing so.

Judging from the volume of painted plates and limited-edition coins being hawked on TV ads that gush about Obama’s “kind eyes and warm smile,” the Merchandising of the President-Elect might be the only growth industry left.

Here in NYC, you can’t walk a block in midtown without passing several street vendors pushing Obamawear. But maybe I’m only perceiving this avalanche of advertising and street trinkets because I’m stuck inside the New York bubble.

Could Obama’s campaign imagery help sell sugared water to a entire nation?

I’m skeptical. The United States isn’t Manhattan, and selecting a particular brand of cola isn’t usually where people make political statements.

If the new Pepsi logo was designed to evoke the Obama logo, maybe the Ad Men of Madison Avenue—unable to see outside the New York bubble themselves—simply miscalculated on something that could backfire. Or maybe they launched this redesign fully aware that they were using one of the world’s most recognizable brands as collateral in a big bet on the political fortunes of one person.

Mad Men indeed.

8 September 2008 @ 8:52AM >> Sex doesn’t sell, at least not in Europe:

[Members of European Parliament] want TV regulators in the EU to set guidelines which would see the end of anything deemed to portray women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes.

This could potentially mean an end to attractive women advertising perfume, housewives in the kitchen or men doing DIY.

Such classic adverts as the Diet Coke commercial featuring the bare-chested builder, or Wonderbra’s “Hello Boys” featuring model Eva Herzigova would have been banned.

The new rules come in a report by the EU’s women’s rights committee.
Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a “zero-tolerance” policy against “sexist insults or degrading images”.

4 April 2008 @ 10:20AM >> Apparently, if vodka maker Absolut had its way, Texas, California and much of the southwest United States would be given to Mexico.

At least, that’s the only conclusion one could reach after looking at an ad campaign Absolut is running in Mexico.

The ads, with the bold caption “IN AN ABSOLUT WORLD” show a fictional map of the United States where much of its territory has been taken over by Mexico.

Oddly, Absolut’s distributor, V&S Group, claims in their Corporate Responsibility statement, “We strive to achieve good relations with the world around us.”

Really? In what way does this ad further that goal?

Maybe this is how international borders would be drawn in an Absolut world. But in an Evan world, there will be no more drinking of Absolut vodka.

(Hat tip: Gateway Pundit and AbsolutAds.com.)

3 April 2008 @ 8:05AM >> Spam blogs, sometimes called “splogs,” are phony blogs set up to earn money by displaying ads. Splogs steal content from other sites so that they appear to the untrained eye as genuine blogs. When people conduct web searches, that stolen content drives traffic to the site, raising the revenue from advertising.

It’s a sleazy practice, and at times, I’ve seen posts from this site appear on splogs. Recently, I found a splog that copies text from this site, but it also does something new: it changes certain words in the post to modify the content slightly.

This page copied part of a post called Am I a Fair-Weather Friend of Free Speech?

I realize that by linking to the splog, I am helping them achieve their goal of increased traffic. Still, it’s an interesting development in the evolution of spam, and it seems worthy of note.

25 September 2007 @ 9:28AM >> After days of denials, The New York Times has finally admitted that a controversial MoveOn.org ad referring to General Petreus as “General Betray Us” was not handled according to the paper’s usual advertising guidelines. Public Editor Clark Hoyt writes:

For nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

On Monday, Sept. 10, the day that Gen. David H. Petraeus came before Congress to warn against a rapid withdrawal of troops, The Times carried a full-page ad attacking his truthfulness.

Under the provocative headline “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” the ad, purchased by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org, charged that the highly decorated Petraeus was “constantly at war with the facts” in giving upbeat assessments of progress and refusing to acknowledge that Iraq is “mired in an unwinnable religious civil war.”

“Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us,” MoveOn.org declared.

The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee. In more than 4,000 e-mail messages, people around the country raged at The Times with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.”

[...]

Did MoveOn.org get favored treatment from The Times? And was the ad outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse?

The answer to the first question is that MoveOn.org paid what is known in the newspaper industry as a standby rate of $64,575 that it should not have received under Times policies. The group should have paid $142,083. The Times had maintained for a week that the standby rate was appropriate, but a company spokeswoman told me late Thursday afternoon that an advertising sales representative made a mistake.

The answer to the second question is that the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.” Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.

By the end of last week the ad appeared to have backfired on both MoveOn.org and fellow opponents of the war in Iraq — and on The Times. It gave the Bush administration and its allies an opportunity to change the subject from questions about an unpopular war to defense of a respected general with nine rows of ribbons on his chest, including a Bronze Star with a V for valor. And it gave fresh ammunition to a cottage industry that loves to bash The Times as a bastion of the “liberal media.”

For its part, MoveOn has decided to pay the Times an additional $77,083 for the ad, to make up the difference between what they paid and what they should have paid. This move shields the Times against accusations that it made an in-kind contribution to MoveOn, something that could be legally perilous for the paper.

But it strikes me that MoveOn giving more money to the Times after the paper gets caught doesn’t change the equation much. One high-profile wing of the Surrender Now movement gives some cash to another high-profile wing of the Surrender Now movement. Big deal.

13 December 2006 >> Some thoughts on the future of newspapers from The Atlantic Monthly:

[T]op reporters and columnists at major newspapers are realizing (or will realize soon) that their fates are not necessarily tied to those of their employers. As portals and search engines and blogs increasingly allow readers to consume media without context or much branding, writers like Thomas Friedman will increasingly wonder what is the benefit of working for a newspaper—especially when the newspaper is burying his article behind a subscriber wall. It will require only a slight shift in the economic model for the Friedmans of the world to realize that they don’t need the newspapers they work for; that they can go off and blog on their own, or form United Artists-like cooperatives to financially support their independent efforts.

So what should newspapers do? They could stop printing. It may happen eventually, or perhaps newsprint will find a financially sustainable market among the elite and elderly (or perhaps it will have a nostalgic vogue not unlike that of, say, heirloom tomatoes), but that’s not what I’m getting at. The current Web-publishing model that newspapers are using isn’t likely to become financially viable anytime soon. With few exceptions, the media businesses thriving on the Web either are low-cost blog-like efforts or follow a many-to-many model, in which communities create, share, and consume content. Publishing an article on the Web gets you one click; getting your users to write the article for you gets you a thousand clicks, and costs less to boot. In other words, turning your users into contributors increases their engagement with your site—each click is, after all, also an “ad impression”—while simultaneously generating more content that you in turn can sell to advertisers.

That, I’d venture, is how you start rethinking the newspaper business. Not only do you allow your reporters to blog; you make them the hubs of their own social networks, the maestros of their own wikis, the masters of their own many-to-many realms. To take but one example, Kelefa Sanneh is the pop-music critic for The New York Times. He is very likely the best music critic in the country, and certainly the best new Times music writer in years. Let’s say that Sanneh creates his own community around the music he likes. Or The Washington Post’s Dana Priest creates an interactive online universe around her intelligence reportage. With editorial oversight only for libel and factual accuracy, Sanneh or Priest are allowed to do whatever they want on their sites (while their mother ships pour their resources into marketing them). In Sanneh’s case, allow other people to write music reviews under the Times/Sanneh “brand.” In Priest’s case, turn the site into a clearinghouse for global intelligence information, rumors, conspiracy theories, and so forth (obligatory disclaimer: “The views of posters do not necessarily represent those of the Washington Post Company”). Go even further: incentivize the critics and reporters by allowing them to profit based on the popularity of their sites; make it worth their while to stick around.

[...]

Playing this logic out, the next task would be uniting the Sanneh or Priest site to the Times or Post whole. You could essentially self-syndicate, sending your regular Times or Post headlines to Sanneh’s and Priest’s sites, luring readers back to the mother ship while increasing the number of times each story is read. Indeed, the logic could be (and in some circles already is being) played out even further. What if you essentially exploded the central function of the newspaper and “microchunked” (to borrow a current term) the content, syndicating all of it to bloggers or other news sites in return for a share of any advertising revenue each site generates? The Associated Press has made this the centerpiece of its digital-age strategy: it recently signed a potentially breakthrough deal with Google, in which Google will pay the AP for access to its stories; and the AP has launched a broadband player that Web sites can use to access AP video content. Its content goes where the readers are, and the AP gets paid, no matter what. Remarkably, this most old-school of services is a lone bright spot in the MSM landscape. The AP’s revenues have increased from more than $593 million in 2003 to more than $654 million in 2005; its digital revenue grew at a rate of 66 percent from 2004 to 2006. Of course, the AP has always been a syndicator, so no conceptual leap of faith (indeed no leap whatsoever) was required to move the business from analog to digital.

25 October 2006 @ 9:13AM >> David Zucker, the writer and director of Airplane! and a number of other comedies, has recently been releasing humorous political ads online. Political involvement among Hollywood insiders is nothing new, but what makes Zucker’s recent work a man-bites-dog story is that he’s been doing ads for those evil Republicans, something which is sure to make him an anathema in his industry.

One of his recent ads, a send-up of the Clinton Administration’s foreign policy—complete with a Madeleine Albright stand-in who looks a little too accurate to be flattering—was deemed too hot for establishment Republicans, who declined to air it. No matter; these days, you can reach audiences online without expensive media buys.

Zucker’s latest piece looks at what life might be like if Democrats captured Congress and dictated the nation’s tax policy.

Has David Zucker stumbled onto a new model in political advertising? I think so.

21 February 2006 >> Yeah, I want to hand my money over to an outfit called “Violent Cooperation Company”:

Our companys name is VC “Violent Cooperation.” Violent Cooperation inc. was founded in 2001 with the purpose to finally solve the dilemma between seller and buyer: “Will the buyer send money or does seller send out the goods first?” At one moment when many action sites started up Violent Cooperation’s Escrow Service, the decision of a unique problem has been found to a very common, sore problem. Violent Cooperation has opened a consumer-to-consumer market in the USA, amongst them eBay is known.

(From a spam e-mail recently received.)

18 August 2005 @ 11:18AM >> Hollywood vs. the old guard of the newspaper industry:

Hollywood is about to deliver bad news to the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times and, to a lesser extent, other big-city dailies around the country. Every major movie studio is rethinking its reliably humongous display ad buys in those papers because those newsosaur readers are, to quote one mogul, “older and elitist” compared to younger, low-brow filmgoers — so it makes no sense to waste the dough.

Wait, it gets worse: I’ve learned that at least two Hollywood movie studios have decided to drastically cut their newspaper display ads as soon as possible.

[...]

“We’re rethinking our newspaper ads and I mean, literally, on every movie. Everybody is,” one movie mogul tells me. “The only people who read newspapers are older and elitist. Movies like Sky High don’t need ads in The New York Times. But the studios did it because newspapers were seen as a necessary evil.

“But I don’t think it’s as important anymore.”

24 June 2005 @ 5:52PM >> A press release from World Ahead Publishing—a publisher of conservative and libertarian books—charges that Google banned an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton:

Popular search engine Google reversed course late last week and banned a previously approved online ad campaign for a new book that documents abuses of power by Bill and Hillary Clinton. The surprise move prompted the book’s author and publishing house to publicly question if the politics of Google’s CEO - a financial backer of Hillary Clinton - played a role in this change of course.

“Google’s decision to reverse its prior approval and shut down this banner ad campaign reeks of political bias,” charges [author] Candice E. Jackson. [...]

The controversy comes at a time when the search engine giant is facing increasing scrutiny for claims of editorial unfairness by conservative organizations. Last month RightMarch.com, a conservative activist group, went public with claims that Google was rejecting its ads targeting House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi while at the same time running identical ads attacking Republican Leader Tom DeLay.

Representatives for Google - whose corporate motto is “don’t be evil” - attempted to defend the surprise ban on the book’s ads by claiming their policies prohibit ads that are against an individual. But while the ads for the book - which featured images of the book’s cover and pictures of the former First Couple - were suddenly deemed too offensive, Google happily accepts advertisements with headlines such as “Hate Bush? So Do We,” “Bush Belongs Behind Bars,” and “George W. Bush Fart Doll.”

Early last month, a similar controversy erupted when Google accepted ads targeting Republican Congressman Tom DeLay while rejecting similar ads targeting Democratic Congressman Nancy Pelosi. On May 9th, WorldNetDaily reported:

Google, the Internet’s No. 1 search engine, is still running attack ads against besieged House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, despite assurances by the company’s spokesman they were all pulled last week.

The issue of the anti-DeLay ads came to light when a conservative activist group discovered the ads and designed a similar campaign, using the same verbiage, targeting House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

When the anti-Pelosi ads were rejected by Google, RightMarch.com protested what it saw as political bias in Google’s content.

When questioned about the apparent double-standard by WND, Mike Mayzel, spokesman for Google, said both the anti-Pelosi ad and the anti-DeLay ad were pulled.

“Both ads were taken down,” he told WND. “Any assertion to the contrary is false. As soon as an ad is reviewed and found to be in violation of our policies, we take it down as soon as possible. Any suggestion we would leave some ads up longer than others for reasons of political bias is false.”

However, a search of Google’s site yesterday shows at least three more anti-DeLay ads still running[.]

As of this writing nearly two months later, anti-Tom DeLay ads are still running, despite Google’s assurances that they wouldn’t be. However, one anti-Nancy Pelosi ad is also running, which makes me wonder whether the problem is one of corporate political bias or simply one of bias—or incompetence—on the part of individual staffers who administer the ad approval process. Google may have dozens of employees who approve these ads, which could explain the inconsistent application of its policy.

Whatever the explanation, this kind of information doesn’t exactly help Google’s case:

A WorldNetDaily search of Google executive and employee political contributions filed with the Federal Election Commission showed nearly 99 percent of its $469,500 went to Democrats over the last three election cycles.

As a private company, Google is fully within its rights to accept or reject any ad it sees fit. However, if these charges are true, then the public should at least be aware of the fact that Google is making political calculations in the selective application of its ad policy. Google would also be wise to tighten up the application of this policy; the appearance of bias for a company that aspires to be the world’s gateway to the Internet would be devastating.

28 March 2005 >> Slate has an interesting piece on the changing face throat of the advertising voice-over business.

6 January 2005 @ 9:27PM >> Bill Hobbs is a Tennessee-based political blogger who’s relatively happy with Google AdSense, despite the poor targeting of ads:

I have the AdSense service running on HobbsOnline and I don’t mind the off-target ads. In fact I find them kind of funny in that an informal online poll of my readers last year found that about 85 percent of them supported the re-election of President Bush. AdSense won’t generate much revenue. It took me eight months to accumulate the first $100 in revenue and it’s going to take three months to accumulate the next $100. Not huge, but not horrible either.

I just sent Bill an e-mail in response to his post. Here’s an excerpt:

While it is true that I was frustrated by the insulting nature of the mistargeted Google ads, there certainly was a humorous aspect as well. Although, had the election not gone the way I wanted, I suspect that my ability to see the humor in it might be a little dampened.

My real gripe with the ad mistargeting was knowing that it would cost me revenue. If I’m going to whore out the side margins of my site, I might as well maximize the revenue. (Why be a street-corner hooker when you can be a high-priced call-girl?) Serving up ads that are irrelevant for large portions of my site’s audience means that they will be generating far less revenue than if the ads were targeted properly. So, if I’m going to sell space that ends up insulting my audience AND the selling of that space isn’t resulting in the income that it could/should, then it doesn’t seem worth it to me.

Bill also mentions an ad service called BlogMatch Network that might be worth checking out. I tried signing up for BlogAds several days ago, but have not yet heard back from them. Not an auspicious start.

6 January 2005 >> Google’s ad serving technology has a long way to go if it is going to be widely used on opinion sites that discuss current events and politics.

After not-quite-three days, it became clear that the mistargeted ads I wrote about earlier are considered a feature of AdSense and not a bug. After writing Google about the problem, I got this response:

We understand your concern with the types of ads that are being displayed on your site. Please note that at this time, AdSense only targets ads
based on overall site content, not keywords or categories. Our AdSense
crawlers automatically determine which ads to display after gathering
information about the content of your pages.

If you’d like to display ads related to specific topics on your website,
we recommend including more text-based content about these topics on your
site to assist our crawlers in gathering information about your pages and
determining relevant ads to display. Complete sentences and paragraphs are
helpful to our crawlers in determining the content of a page.
Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee the results of any changes you make to
your pages.

Well, I can’t imagine this site getting much more text-heavy than it already is, so it’s obvious that the system is working as Google intends. That’s fine, but I don’t think that system is going to work for a vast majority of sites like mine.

I could live with the occasional mistargeted ad, but it seemed that a vast majority of the political ads were inappropriate for large segments of this site’s audience. I could even live with the many ads that highlighted positions different from mine, if some of them weren’t so downright insulting. One ad referred to Bush voters as “dumb,” while another sold t-shirts that labeled Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld “asses of evil.” Now, I may not be a wise Big Media professional, but even I know that insulting your audience is not a good way to encourage it to stick around.

I had planned on running the Google ad test indefinitely to see what kind of revenue it would generate. Frankly, I was encouraged by Google’s compensation on these relatively low-volume days (volume spikes when new articles are posted or when sites like Instapundit link), but I suspect I can do just as well—if not better—by a system that accounts for the preferences of this site’s audience. After all, isn’t that what advertisers are paying for, a distinct and well-defined audience?

I hope Google eventually allows sites to describe themselves better so that the ads can be more accurately targeted. It wouldn’t take much, just allow site owners to tick off a bunch of checkboxes that help categorize things, and allow advertisers to do the same. If online dating services can automate that sort of matching, why can’t Google?

Just about everything else about Google’s system was a pleasure to use. It’s simple, it’s easy to integrate, the reporting tools are great, and the compensation is decent. But this one big glaring omission is the deal-killer for me, and I suspect I’m not alone. If Google fixes this problem, I might be back.

4 January 2005 >> Several hours ago, I started to test the integration of AdSense—Google’s ad serving technology—with Brain Terminal.

Google’s system places ads on the page based on the content of that page. It uses combinations of keywords to determine what ads to place. As you may have noticed, this technology does not lead to perfect ad targeting.

If you were to judge Brain Terminal based on the Google ads shown thus far, you might get the mistaken impression that you were looking at MoveOn.org or DemocraticUnderground.com.

Aside from the humorous aspect of seeing a “Hillary for President” ad on the front page of this site—no joke, that was in the very first set of ads placed by Google—it means that the GoogleAds may not be as effective as hoped. I suspect that the percentage of Brain Terminal visitors clicking on Hillary ads will be far less than, say, over at DailyKos.com. Fewer click-throughs means less revenue. Less revenue means a greater likelihood that I will end up trying a different system, such as BlogAds.

I will let the Google AdSense test run its course, and hopefully the targeting will get better over time. (I can exclude certain URLs from the advertiser roster, but the exclude list can only be 200 entries long.) If I am lucky, AdSense will sense which ads have a high click-through rate on this site and will put them into the rotation more frequently. We shall see.

In the meantime, please post your comments about the AdSense test in the discussion forum. Primarily, I’m interested in hearing about browser display issues; it is possible that this new ad code will result in formatting problems with certain browsers. If so, I’d like to be aware of these problems and fix them if I can.

Thanks for bearing with me during the test, and please don’t get too insulted by any of the ads, such as the “How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb” ad now appearing on the front page. Think of it as an opportunity to practice your meditation techniques.