Henny please check out the ad for AHI tuna on your tin toys lens!  Ahi

Large selection of delicious fish delivered fresh to your door.
www.legalseafoods.com

Henny, I agree with you totally -- Squidoo is/was great and its free -- but did you know that most of the lensmasters give the proceeds back to Squidoo or to other charities? "Have you read any of Seth Godin's books? Purple Cow, Free Prize inside?  http://www.squidoo.com/seth

Henny no offense but when I hear people say "Squidoo gives us the opportunity to make websites and maybe earn some money without any costs, it's totally free" (smiling avatar) that is exactly the time I look to move on -- my two cents but I think you TOTALLY miss the point here --  "The more ads the better. Anyplace, anywhere." (OH wow now there is a innovative and new approach to the internet, sheeesh!!!) I hope YOU make GOBs of money but for me the magic is going fast and that is a shame! You may want to check out your

And your right there are a zillion ways to "build your own websites" and "Download a HTML-editor somewhere..." and shortly Squidoo will be JUST one more of those. Happy Monday

Last edited by michaelgibbons (06/26/2006 5:56 am)

Anne to answer your question, the proliferation of Google ads has changed viewing patterns -- they call it the glazed over look!! Can anyone say back window mounted brakelights on cars -- first WOW and NOW so what.

In my opinion each day this Google debate goes on Squidoo inches a little closer to the dreaded ...middle! Remember even Seth acknowledges there IS MORE money to be made there -- but for how long? Me I have not touched a lens in weeks -- how bout you?

I am wondering about clickouts. Do we get fewer clickouts now that the ads are on top? That would indicate that people really do leave when they see them. I think it might be a good indicator of the actual effect they have on credibility.

Angela

We're actually considering that very idea, Anne -- highlighting select products.

As far as whether the change in ad placement improves or hurts the performance of Squidoo and your lenses -- per Angela's question about whether people click on ads but not content -- consider this:

* Clickouts on content-oriented links -- the links you feature as lensmasters -- have increased roughly 200% since the placement changed
* This drastically outpaces our traffic growth, which is also increasing -- so traffic does not account for those clickouts

So, the placement change has certainly not kept people from reading your lenses, taking them seriously, or clicking on the resources you recommend. In fact, since the ads moved, people have clicked on _more_ of your content links platform wide.

Cool.

I really was asking about *our* clickouts -- whether people stick around. I'm glad to hear that they do!

Angela

Hi Angela

Want a tip?

I am finding that lenses with Youtube as top module will keep visitors the longests, they scroll down while waiting for video to load.

(That will be 42 cents LOL)

Cheers
Jeff

jeffryv wrote:

They have had ads for decades too LOL

I never said they hadn't. What I said was that they can get away with ad-heavy sites because they have a reputation that they're banking on. Mr. Godin talks about this sort of thing in Permission Marketing...which is ironic, as we're essentially arguing against blatant interruption marketing (which, Seth wrote, was ineffective in the long run and incongruous with marketing on the web).

So Heath, is Seth wrong on this point?

Permission Marketing.?
By Seth

That was 8 years ago in the old Yoyodyne days, and in my opinion it has turned out he was wrong.
e.g. a multi billion dollar company called Google came along a stood everything on it's head.

I think he was refering to the old huge flashing banner/popup days anyways

Last edited by jeffryv (06/26/2006 3:10 pm)

SG QUOTE

"The flip side of this change - and this is the third big shift in marketing - is that less and less content will be free. You will pay for things you don't have to pay for today, because interruption-based advertising will not be able to subsidize them anymore. And if you're not willing to pay for content, you'll have to put up with a world filled with even more interruptions. We're living with this shift already. You can pay $4 to see a movie without interruption, either on video or through pay-per-view. Or you can wait a year, see it for free on network television, and endure constant interruptions. More and more entertainment will end up working this way.

jeffryv wrote:

"And if you're not willing to pay for content, you'll have to put up with a world filled with even more interruptions. We're living with this shift already. You can pay $4 to see a movie without interruption, either on video or through pay-per-view. Or you can wait a year, see it for free on network television, and endure constant interruptions. More and more entertainment will end up working this way."

Except that the $4-per-movie model is collapsing in the wake of alternative models, such as Netflix (flat-rate monthly subscription service) and Redbox ($1/night). And while each has its restrictions, both offer fewer interruptions at a lower price.

In response to Travis, you're right about the control group. But I didn't say that relation was causation. What I'm saying is that the ad placement -- in general -- has not hurt lens performance. So people's comments about people leaving, not respecting lenses, etc., are inaccurate.

heathrow wrote:

In response to Travis, you're right about the control group. But I didn't say that relation was causation. What I'm saying is that the ad placement -- in general -- has not hurt lens performance. So people's comments about people leaving, not respecting lenses, etc., are inaccurate.

Maybe it's causing people to rapidly scroll down to the links to avoid the ads?

I'm not a fan of the top position ads, but I'm fine with a month (or however) long experiment to gather data needed to improve the site.  The site is still new so better to try these things now than when the community is much larger.