An ad has never been bought on The Consumerist. Those banner ads you see flickering all around? They’re run across the entire Gawker network. Nobody, to date, however, has bought any Consumerist-specific ads as such. If someone wanted to, we’re sure the Gawker ad team would welcome them with open arms.
Until then, just know we get a secret thrill every time we’re accused of, “doing it for the ad-revenue.”
CORRECTION: One time, Fast Food Nation bought ads for its theatrical release.
CORRECTION 2: Upon occasion, we’ve been the recipient of certain run-of-Gawker-network ads. SnorgTees, a “Gypsy Caravan” movie, and the Public Theater come to mind. And then there’s those Amazon ads. And the Google ads. But from what we’ve been told, the $ is negligible.
This is not to say we’re saints. Or immune to capitalism. Or that advertising is bad, or we wouldn’t accept it. Just that the gap between our editorial and our advertising is greater than might be readily apparent.
More From Consumerist
-
Bravo And Steve’s Real Food Cat And Dog Foods Recalled For Salmonella
-
Verizon FiOS Wants The Fees It Pays Tied To How Many People Actually Watch A Channel
-
Drunk Or Sober, Jeff Goldblum Is Way Too Into PayPal
-
Make Your Own Automatic Pet Feeder With A Litter Bucket And A Pie Tin
-
Time Warner Technicians Rescue Kitten Snuggled Up Against Cable Lines
Who pays attention to the ads anyway? I despise advertisers and thus have learned how not to succomb to them. If people really learned how to ignore advertising, the industry would be screwed. Advertising should only work on children, adults should know better. People need to be a lot more critical when it comes to any media. The only times I pay attention to ads are for groceries, or something else I am in the market to purchase anyway, and movies.
SELLOUTS!!!!!
AT LEAST THEY’RE EFFING BUSTING GEEK SQUAD, WHAT THE EFF HAVE YOU DONE?
@Ben Popken: More like we’re making a small point instead of the large point some are trying to slag us for.
That makes sense…maybe my comments were injected into the middle of a conversation.
@rocnrule: (My quick CV: 10-yr media veteran, in both buying and sales, and also as part of a third-party media consultancy; I’ve worked through multiple agencies [including a full-service agency], and television stations both directly and as a national rep. I work with numbers, not on the creative side.)
Who pays attention to the ads anyway?…The only times I pay attention to ads are for groceries, or something else I am in the market to purchase anyway, and movies.
The answer to your quesions is– you. The most immediately responsive advertising occurs when the message influences someone “in the market” already. (Since you’re buying a soda anyway, why not try….)
The secondary value of advertising is keeping a product or service “top of mind.” (I need a car…I think Brand X is a good vehicle.)
I despise advertisers…
You may despise the advertisers but you’re still buying their products and services.
…and thus have learned how not to succomb to them.
No you haven’t, you’re just conscious of being influenced when you want to be influenced. For reference, please read your own words.
Advertising should only work on children, adults should know better.
I hope your parnets know you’re on the internet.
If people really learned how to ignore advertising, the industry would be screwed.
There’s a lot of talk about this in the industry, and I haven’t yet formed a solid opinion. I will say this (note the date because I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future): I doubt it. In my experience truly creative minds are excellent at not only producing commerical images but are equally as adept in understanding media, how it is consumed and how to use the media to reach consumers. Take the revived use of product placement for example; this is a very old concept in terms of mass media, but has been used in more subtle ways over the past several years.
People need to be a lot more critical when it comes to any media.
This is a statement I can agree with.
@Triteon:
I think you’ve grossly misinterpreted my statements. When I say in the market, I mean big purchase items like a car, and even then, I seek out the advertising, I don’t allow it to come to me. Also, no amount of soda ads will make me buy one. Having no ads for a brand I am loyal to will not make me forget I like it better.
I won’t lie and say I don’t buy extra groceries on impulse, but thats usually because I’m high.
Yes I buy their products, unfortunately every company with money advertises and unless I choose to buy privately, or used, its unavoidable.
Sure if I see a restaurant ad, I may get hungry, but not for them. When I read a magazine, or the newspaper, or come here, or see billboards, I do not take the time to read the ads. I see its an ad, and I instantly stop looking, by habit. When I watch tv ads, I tune them out.
I am not against advertising as a whole. How else would I know certain products even existed. There’s a difference between “Hey, look at this new product” and “Buy this, Buy this, Buy this”. When it comes to advertisers treating us like sheep, thats where I take offence and tune out, or worse, specifically target them to assure I do not buy their products, ever. (ie Wal-Mart)
I’m sure you are right that advertisers would figure out new ways to get to us.
@Ben Popken: Are you compensated in any way by Dealhack or Bargainist?
Dealhack appears to me to very much a commercial, rather than public-service, site. Their Contact Us statement includes this statement: “If you represent a company and wish to discuss working with us, send an email to partnerships@dealhack.com.”
Bargainist is little less obviously commercial, but its own Contact Us page includes this statement: “If you’re interested in advertising on The Bargainist, or have another business related question, please contact our publishing team at Dejarik Media.”
I think it’s a reasonable deduction that both sites make money from advertising. In the case of Dealhack, it looks like all of their content, itself, is advertising. And whether any of the stuff on either site is a “deal” or a “bargain” should always be seriously questioned. Anybody can jack up a price 30%, have a 30% off sale, and call it a “deal” or a “bargain.” You know what I’m saying?
The whole “Morning Deals” feature as such makes me uncomfortable because I’m not sure the alleged “deals” are really being researched, and it might be rather arbitrarily lining people’s pockets. Or if it is not arbitrary, i.e., Ben or Consumerist is paid somehow (directly or indirectly) for these placements, then I’d say there needs to be a disclaimer.
I, for one, wouldn’t miss it if the Morning Deal feature were scrapped entirely. Another argument is that it supports consumption for consumption’s sake — I know people who suddenly have a “need” for something when there is an alleged “deal” on it. Indeed, I imagine a Morning Deal feature rather heartens credit card companies, and not for pro-consumer reasons.
@GroceriesCart: that “bust” was pretty lame. plus, the ensuing media whoring done about it.