On 10/23/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
This is not an advertising deal. It is one of many partnerships we will need to enter to help keep everything running.
This IS advertising. We are providing a link to a service that we will get money from. We are not doing this for educational or whatever reasons like in the external links section of articles, we are doing it because it will (we hope) generate $$$s.
Three questions;
Surely the number of people who visit this tools page is going to be miniscule (since most of our visitors, i presume, never leave the article namespace) so will it actually generate any/much dosh? Are we just being paid for 1-click tools downloaded via the wikipedia link, or are we being paid for any 1-click tool used?
What is wrong with advertising? Web advertising has come a long way since wikipedia was first founded. google and yahoo both offer text adds that could be added somewhere on the page. We could almost certainly negotiate a VERY good deal with yahoo or google to pay us above normal price since the kind of content we offer is very suited to text adds, and (if i understand alexia correctly) we account for a tenth of a percent (and growing - if current growth continues we could well soon be 1%) of all web traffic, an amount not to be scoffed at. We could even provide an option for regular users to turn the adds off. I agree with dan, that straight forward advertising like this would be far better than stealth advertising which is what this 1-click deal really amounts to.
Mav, for those of us not involved with finance, what are the costs assosicated with our growth? Is the only expense that is growing hardware/hosting etc, or are there other rising costs?
paz y amor, -rjs.
-- DO NOT SEND ME WORD ATTACHMENTS - I *WILL* BITE! http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/sylvester-response.html
Hit me: http://robin.shannon.id.au Jab me: robin.shannon@jabber.org.au Upgrade to kubuntu linux: http://releases.ubuntu.com/kubuntu/breezy/ Faith is under the left nipple. -- Martin Luther