Thursday, October 05, 2006

A few months we had a debate here as to whether I should allow Google ads to appear. Those who disapproved told me so. Those who couldn't care less didn't. I decided to let the ads run a bit just to see what happened. I can now report that we've earned a princely $30 from people clicking through - but Google keep the money until we pass $100. They have however forwarded us 40 pence just to check that the system works and I am very proud of this first fruit of a new income stream for Macmillan. The ads rotate but yesterday one in particular caught my eye:

“Buy Macmillan Publishing, Full Range available now online: fast, reliable, secure."

As a colleague remarked, The only thing that matters in publicity is that they spell your name right (which remarkably they have) but are we really fast, reliable and secure?

http://www.auravita.com/ is where to go if you're really interested. These guys could put the investment banks out of business if they succeed in selling us!

10/5/2006 8:03:02 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
I always felt that the idea of your blog was to conenct and to open discussion. If rising visitor numbers and awareness of you and ypur company are not a sufficient measure of the value of yoru blog I always wondered how Ads (Adsense or anyone else) would help.

I wondered though why you don't link more to actually shopfronts for you own titles. Over at the Penguin Blog they do this fairly regularly and though I question whether it yields huge results, even a few books sold through that kind of linking would exceed the return from google's ads!

Eoin
10/6/2006 6:29:44 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Richard

Some of us who have first hand knowledge of the failings within the predecessors of Google AdSense program gave you the benefit of our experience : you chose to ignore this advice, sobeit.

However, as a minnow in the ocean, who has also read your words where you consider that some independent booksellers have been slow to use the advantages of internet marketing, I cannot help feeling that you really have no "clothes" which set you apart from the drab corporate world.

Rightly, you are very sceptical about the long term objectives of Google book scanning ; strange that somebody who feels that way should permit Google to offer re-direction from this blog to an advertiser of Google's choice.

I am highly critical of the corporate world : I don't list stock on corporate sites, so at least I cannot be accused of having double standards which you appear to be showing with regard to Google.

My experience with AdWords and similar click-thrus was as a shareowner in a co-op ( TomFolio ) : we learnt pretty damn quick that we were being screwed, as did others with the class actions.
10/7/2006 1:16:14 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Eoin, I don't know why but I feel a little shy about linking to too many Macmillan titles. Whilst it's good to have a vehicle to promote our activities there is a risk of deterring readers by becoming simply a marketing piece.

And Clive on your high horse again. Arguing against the theft of copyright by Google doesn't mean that everything they do is bad and should be blacked. I bet you use Google for searching. Is that a double standard? One of the points of this blog is for me to learn at first hand and the ads are part of that learning. And whether or not my clothes are corporate, non-corporate or non-existent is for others to judge. For sure they're not very smart.
10/7/2006 2:15:23 PM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Richard

I use http://www.dogpile.com

Highly recommended by me
10/8/2006 10:50:18 AM (GMT Standard Time, UTC+00:00)
Richard,

It strikes me that if you were to add links (As I noted you did for Swithering) and kept up the generous links to others that you have to date no one would mind. It is only when a blog becomes a blatant vehicle with no reference to others or their achievements that readership will decline!
Eoin