On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM,
<WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
I'm also skeptical that manually placed and
manually monitored, internet advertising even pays for the wages of
the worker.
This is why Google uses automagic. And why everyone else does as well.
Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to
appear on? Is that "manual", or "automagic"? Would letting the
advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be "manual", or
"automagic"?
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
wrote:
If automagic worked, I would see ads for stuff I
might have at least a
passing interest in; I seldom do. But if I'm looking at an article on a
book or an author I might well take a look at an ad page linked from
it.
I buy lots of books. If nothing else it would save a step or two.
With support for location targeting you could do even better. There
are physicians who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on
location targeted Google adwords, and they do so because the revenue
they're generating from it is more than the cost.
I think this is all pretty much a nonstarter, though. Between the
lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles
that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I
don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites.
Yes, revenue would have to be used for nonprofit purposes, either ours or
others, or else.
I am aware from experience here and elsewhere that even the most obvious
initiatives can be futile. That is not a reason to not to advance them,
repeatedly.
Fred