[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I wasn’t making fun of her phrasing at all. In fact, I even rephrased my original response in the hope of not coming off that way. What I was trying to do was suggest that perhaps her focus had become misplaced. Had she said that she wasn’t getting the same ‘experience’ I would probably have just let it slide or perhaps a comment similar to the one I did above about the board’s content being its value, not peripheral stuff like the Straight Dope’s page design, Google ads and/or banner ads.
Further, I’m not protesting the negative response to the banner ads around here just out of a desire to be confrontational, you know. IMO, the board lost something when it went to paid subscriptions and a fair number of regular posters bit the dust. I would hate to see the same thing happen now over something as relatively minor and innocuous as these banner ads.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the response, SA. And my apologies for inferring condescension you did not intend.
As I noted above, the banner ads in and of themselves are an annoyance, but the decision to add them signals (at least to me) a profound cluelessness on the part of the new owners of the Reader. There is little benefit to be gained from the decision and much to lose.
Bear in mind, please, that I do NOT think we have a right to know how much the Reader/Creative Loafing makes from the Dope, nor a voice in their decisions. Endless theorizing about the costs of running the Dope vs. the revenue from it are not particularly interesting.
But as a customer AND a provider of the product they sell, I’d like to think that the new owners give a shit about me, at least in the collective sense. And while there is certainly a vocal segment of the board that does not care if there are banner ads, there is one of at least equal size that does. Making a change of this kind pisses the latter group off, which is a bad decision when those people are (a) directly responsible for a portion of your revenue through subscriptions and (b) indirectly responsible for a portion of your revenue by generating the content that people come here to see so you can show the ads.
It seems to be that a fair-sized chunk of the “get over it” crowd is advocating blocking or ignoring the ads. Since the only way the ads can generate direct incremental revenue from Member is if we see them, this further reduces the revenue potential of the ads.
In sum, I’m not finding any way in which this nets out as a good business decision by the owners. The best case is minor incremental ad revenue at the cost of some subscriptions and content providers leaving. Unless someone out there thinks that having animated banner ads is going to increase membership?