[Foundation-l] Benefits of advertising (was Re: Our exponentiallyincreasing costs)

[Poe, Marshall]

Just a quick question. 

Isn't it the case that Google Adsense (and similar programs) basically
cut the tie between specific advertisers and specific publications?  As
I understand it, the ads are dynamically generated by Google--neither
the advertiser nor the website owner have much say in placement, nor do
the advertiser or website owner have any contact with one another.

If this is so, it's pretty hard for me to understand how putting Adsense
ads on Wikipedia pages could ever lead to any of the editorial-influence
scenarios being described here. Adsense makes the "wall" between
editorial and advertising that stronger than it already is (and I work
for a magazine where it is very strong without Adsense).

Best,  


Marshall Poe, Ph.D.
The Atlantic Monthly
600 New Hampshire Ave. NW 
Washington, DC 20037
202-266-6511
mpoe at theatlantic.com
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces at wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
DiPierro
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:23 PM
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Benefits of advertising (was Re: Our
exponentiallyincreasing costs)

On 10/24/05, Tim Starling <t.starling at physics.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Neil Harris wrote:
> > Hmm. 2500 hits/sec * 86400 secs/day * $1 CPM = $216,000 / _day_, or 
> > $78,000,000+/year. Have you considered that the Wikimedia foundation

> > board might be aware of this, and that its decision not to put up 
> > advertising might be a principled decision, rather than motivated by

> > "fear of money"?
>
> We don't have 2500 hits/sec, we have 2500 requests/sec, i.e. including

> images, stylesheets, etc. The difference is roughly a factor of 3. The

> income would thus be closer to $26M.
>
By these figures, we could cover our current operating costs by putting
> ads on the site for two weeks per year. I'm not sure if it's a good 
> idea though.

 Alternatively, if just 5% of people *opted in* to advertisements, we'd
be set, and could use the donated money on other things (and wouldn't
have to run the ad begging for donations). Personally I'd rather see
targetted ads at the bottom of the page than requests for donations at
the top. Isn't it possible that 5% of Wikipedians are like me in this
respect?
 I really don't see the reason not to try it, other than a fear of
money. Or in the case of Jimbo, the fact that he promised not to do it
until the community agrees.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l at wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l