NETSURFER SCIENCE

Letters to the Editor #3.08

Monday, May 23, 2000

Cookies and ads, Parte the Nth (wherein Judi loses her cool, and Arthur and Laurie sport plaid)

Reader Alan Herrell's text is in black
Editor Judi David's reply is in blue

[The following letter has been edited only for punctuation and grammar.]

Alan Herrell writes:

In response to your reply to a reader: "If we buy just about any high-end hard-copy magazine from the news stand, we have to wade through whole sections of ads looking for the meat. I think the parallel holds true on the Internet. It's the price of being the consumer in a warehouse where we can pluck almost entirely free information off the shelves on demand. "

Your assumption is misleading. The Internet is not "free". You have to step up to the plate, however you access it.

Quite the contrary, Alan. I said very clearly that there is a price. I'm not going to be so reductionist, though, as to suggest that being subjected to advertising is the same as forking over dollars and cents for the privilege of finding and using information.

And, yes, there's a cost for access. But that's as different from the cost of content as the price of a TV antenna is from a Sipowicz rant.

I'm going to anticipate you here, and note also that access to printed periodicals is also deeply subsidized by advertising. Subscription revenue is all well and good - but the subscription base as a measure for advertising rates is as much and more critical. While hardly "free", periodicals' costs and profits are very deeply subsidized and by advertising income, which also generally exceeds subscription or news stand income. The only notable exception that comes to mind is National Geographic.

You assume that the Internet is a marketing paradise and independent content which you specialise in presenting in every issue has to follow the rules of the print and broadcast world.

No one trying to make a dollar on the Internet will tell you it's a marketing paradise. And, no we don't have to follow the rules of the print and broadcast world - 'though you don't specify here whether you're referring to concept or content, both of which you seem to think are compromised.

No advertiser tells us what we may or not print and we've never once given advertisers' concerns any consideration in deciding content. Similarly, we let the market decide what ads will work. And, we also feel entirely free to turn down ads that don't suit our own policies without reference to the policies or presence of any other advertiser. The Internet did not have to follow the rules of the print and broadcast world; it evolved that way because it happens to be a fit.

Is the communications world dictated by advertising? I tend to think not. There have been a few very well documented instances in which advertisers withdrew support for specific content - but almost without exception it was as the urging of one segment or another of the audience. The current controversy over Laura Schlessinger's comments regarding homosexuality is the latest case in point. Even so, nudity, violence, grown-up themes and "objectionable" language make their way to my television screen, pages and monitor every day. Sometimes the strategy is effective, but more often not. Sometimes, the attempt to bowdlerize content exposes the would-be censors more than it forecloses the message.

Ask me, though, if our choices are dictated by commerce, and I'll answer with a resounding "yes". Disney. Microsoft. RJR. Time-Warner. There's infinitely more reason to worry that the Mouse House, Fox, or Universal will extinguish sites entirely than to think that advertising might have compromised the content of those sites.

Let me offer you another view of the internet. this is an excerpt form my most recent Opinion. "If you build a friendly site with compelling content, visitors will come to you. I treat visitors as adults with the power to make their own decisions. I do not electronically Rape [sic] them, by pushing cookies on them."

Now, speaking as a woman - and as one who has experienced assault - you've made me more than a little angry there. I have to tell you that you need to somewhere you need to get some perspective on both cookies and - more urgently - on rape. Throwing the notion of rape around that injudiciously is nothing short of irresponsible. Cookies emphatically do not constitute rape, even in the purplest of prose.

Many people and organizations have built compelling, or at least valued, content. And, visitors show up. Netsurfer, among others, treats visitors as adults. My decision, as an adult, is to allow cookies into my system because of the services they offer me at little demonstrated inconvenience - actually make that no demonstrated inconvenience. You, as an adult, may reject them - and your decision is entirely out of the hands of both Netsurfer and its advertisers. Feel free to reject them. (Rape, you may also recall, doesn't include the option of rejection.)

You already have an arrangement with DoubleClick to serve ads on your site. That is a business decision on your part. You may say without this advertising revenue you could not publish what you do. I have heard this argument time and time again from sites that serve banner ads. This is an old argument. This is what is directly responsible for the poor quality of network television, major magazines and newspapers.

Poor quality? Says you. Could you possibly be referring to the likes of "The West Wing", "NYPD Blue", "Sports Night", "Oz", "Law & Order", "Homicide: Life on the Street", "Sex and the City", "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "Angel", "The Sopranos", "ER", "Malcolm in the Middle", "The Simpsons", "Futurama", "Nova", "Frontline", "Discovery", "Frasier", "Da Vinci's Inquest", "Traders", or "North of 60"? Or perhaps the splendid interpretation of "Arabian Nights" a few weeks ago, the recent BBC/A&E adaptations of Jane Austen works, the BBC/Discovery Channel "Walking with Dinosaurs", "The Civil War", "Baseball", or "Eyes on the Prize"? And, acknowledging that we're writing for the WWW, that's just in the US and Canada, where imports like "Silent Witness", "Prime Suspect", "McCallum", "A Touch of Frost", "Cracker", "Absolutely Fabulous", "Halifax, FP", and "Adrenaline Junkies" are only now making inroads. It seems that, contrary to advertising being "directly responsible" for poor quality, it actually serves us very, very well in these matters.

But, it's not advertising that keeps drek like "Walker, Texas Ranger", "Jerry Springer", or "Baywatch" on the air. It's the fact that people watch it; advertising is a by-product, perhaps even a co-dependent - but it's not the direct cause.

Some major magazines are badly compromised, but not by advertising. To my eye, there's a blandification going on among America's generalist publications like "Time" or "Newsweek", but I think that's in response to readers' declining expectations, not advertisers' increasing expectations. In a Barnes & Noble or a Chapters I can amble the periodicals section for an hour and more perusing a very fine selection of specialty publications - and seldom leave without forfeiting at least a $20 bill.

As for newspapers, well, that's an ethical matter for the fourth estate. Reporting may ideally be objective, but nothing can be written without a point of view. Paroxysms at "The Los Angeles Times" have reminded newspapers of their special responsibilities - although the stories about Miami's two related dailies in the matter of the Elian Gonzalez brouhaha are disturbing.

Still, I believe that the general decline is the result of trying to address the preponderance of readers' expectations. Little in our world nurtures a real attention span. I was intrigued by an ad campaign for one of the local tabloid-style dailies with limited news content and a coy Sunshine Girl and Sunshine Boy up front in each issue. The selling point that it believed set it apart was that "it doesn't cover your face" on the bus - i.e. it was more convenient to read than a broadsheet. Pfft. That has absolutely nothing to do with advertising and everything to do with a massive failure of critical thinking on the part of the consumer.

It is not a valid argument for the Internet. The majority of websites are their own advertisements. They offer information, viewpoints, commentary, products and services without any help from banner advertisers.

True enough. Many ... most ... are devoid of advertising. In the respect that quality content is a site's best recommendation, your model and ours are identical. And, many site owners don't want to be bothered with advertising. Most people don't know how to tap into it, and if they did most advertisers are looking for more traffic than the majority of sites generate. Netsurfer knows it's not easy; it takes a lot of hard work to be as lucky as we've been. Netsurfer does contain advertising. Should we apologize for offering a quality product at no charge? Here's the deal. You pay nothing. Ads show up, for the most part on the edge of your consciousness. You don't even have to click through - 'though the ads seem to have some relevance to our readers, 'cause our click-though rate is pretty respectable as these things go. That's the model we've chosen. It seems to irritate a few dozen readers in every 100,000, though.

I would offer a counter proposal. The Internet is already the largest source of granular, focused, and target rich destinations for finding information, discovering new resources, and targeting select audiences for just about anything the human race can learn, is thinking about or wants to buy.

Advertisers should be bidding for the opportunity to place ads on you site, not calling the shots by tying your hands, your hearts and your editorial freedom with their thirty pieces of silver.

Tsk. Again with the hyperbole. Thirty pieces of silver? Are we betraying readers by placing advertising? Please, Readers, feel free to let me know if you feel betrayed - but Arthur, Laurie, and I are all pretty sick of this subject so don't expect too much to come of it.

I was a subscriber before I ever worked for Netsurfer. I subscribe elsewhere under the same conditions. I've been cruising around the Internet for fully six years. In a month, I surf or at least peek at 1500-2000 sites looking for the best selection for Netsurfer; that's more sites than most people visit in a year - many of them ad-supported, many depositing cookies. I read privacy provisions; I don't post my address anywhere; I accept all cookies blind. I won't discuss my security provisions - but the mechanisms are only what's available to 'most everyone else - and I keep patches current. Not one single piece of spam comes to my personal address. Every scrap of spam that comes into my mailbox arrived first at one of my editorial addresses, where spam is inevitable.

Checking my cache will reveal that I occasionally surf by accident into the two sites that interest me least - XXX pages and hate mongers. Some months ago, NSE worked up a few sites for gay and lesbian teens, so there's evidence of that surfing, too. I often spend a good deal of time at corporate sites because it happens that they sometimes have the best information on very specific science - like how flat screen television or safety tires work. I check out manifestos of all stripe because I still write for Netsurfer Digest and politics falls into its bailiwick. Online, I buy only occasionally and book travel accommodations regularly. I'm often surprised to find that a random site recognizes me from a forgotten visit that must have happened months ago. And yet ... and yet ... I've seen not one detrimental effect from six years of such prudently heedless surfing.

Thirty pieces of silver might make colorful metaphor, but it's nothing more - and an overstated metaphor at that. Nothing evil has happened to our subscribers at our hands. (I know that precisely because I'm a subscriber.) Our hands are not tied, our hearts are quite well, and our editorial freedom is unfettered by all but our own good sense, tastes, and interests. If advertisers somehow managed to tie your hands, heart, and editorial freedom, I suggest assertiveness courses.

As for advertisers bidding ... frankly, I don't want the hassle. And, darn that Laurie, he just won't volunteer for anything. Our concern is content. Arthur, bless his hide, worries about keeping us in servers and mad money. For all I know, he might be tickled by the prospect of hosting an auction.

But, what makes you think that your model would produce a different ethic? If the flashing monkey ad bids more than anyone else, in what way did the bidding serve any purpose? Standards, you say? We already set out limits for our ad placement service, specifying ads or advertisers that are unacceptable to us. We could easily extend our exclusions. But, here's the thing: We don't choose to extend our exclusions because we just don't think animated .gifs or cookies rank anywhere near the top of the list of real risks.

When the advertising revenues and placements take precedence over the content of whatever medium you publish, you have a problem.

Damn straight. That would be a problem. But, you're preaching to the choir on that score. The advertising revenues and placements don't, I repeat DON'T, take precedence over the content in Netsurfer. Laurie and I don't even know who our advertisers are for any given issue or what their policies are --- and if we knew, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to any decisions about content. In fact, Laurie and I are probably just ornery enough to stir the pot if we thought it was the case. And, knowing our Executive Editor, if advertisers tried to dictate or object to content, you could count in nanoseconds the time that it would take Arthur to show them the virtual door.

If we really wanted to compromise ourselves, it wouldn't be tough. Each of the editors' mailboxes is stuffed with opportunities to turn Netsurfer content itself into advertising. We're just not interested.

Still, we also think that people, even advertisers, have an unfettered right to express themselves. It's an animated .gif, fer cryin' out loud, not a rallying cry to membership in a neoNazi group. If we could really, really get our danders up about this the way a handful of people do, yes, those ads, too, would be outta here. Ditto on the cookies. But, no, there are other much more important things on our agenda.

The Internet was conceived as a collaboration tool for the exchange of information. It is developing into a plaid suited hucksters bazaar of such commercialism that the Federal Trade Commission is issuing regulations as fast as they can write them.

And, how very America-centric of the FTC to do so on behalf of the rest of the WWW! But, wait. Where did you get the idea that innocence ever reigned in the WWW? Perhaps in Vannever Bush's ideal it did. But, the whole concept has much more verifiable military origins - and you know what share bears they are. Perhaps you think that including institutions of higher learning would have ensured the innocence you envision. Are those the same schools that recruit athletes illegally, compete for grants and endowments, brook abuse from winning coaches who earn more than professors, and pay their presidents like Fortune 500 CEOs?

In all the surfing that I do to keep the inventory stocked for Netsurfer Science and Netsurfer Education, the sites that irk me most for their lack of collaboration are not the gifted amateurs who lovingly craft generous sites and who manage to get a little piece of the advertising pie. And, it's not even the blatant corporate sites that get my goat. The ones who seem least aware to me are the professional societies unable to break out of the elitist mold, the organizations that barricade the results of their scientific method behind subscriptions and memberships just as they did with hard copy journals 30 years ago. Those are the people who haven't quite grasped the Web's greatest strength or how to turn it to everyone's advantage, including their own.

Just what makes you think that good will would reign in a virtual world? The Internet is a human tool and will be subject to the same innovation or malice or stupidity that characterizes the uses of hammers, electricity, or automobiles. The Internet is not a thing apart. It's of this world, so we're going to have on it The Smithsonian and tripleXXX sites, TheHungerSite.org and David Duke, plaid-suited hucksters like Netsurfer and true believers like you. (I'm a quarter Scottish, so plaid's acceptable for me - but I'd pay good money to see both Laurie and Arthur in a nice lemon yellow tartan.)

Let's Recap.

No need. I got it the first time. But, if you insist.

If you build a friendly site with compelling content, visitors will come to you.

We've found that to be so at Netsurfer, for ourselves and for the sites that we recommend.

If you build a friendly site with compelling content, visitors will recommend you to their friends.

This also - and it's the premise that drives Netsurfer.

If you build a friendly site with compelling content, advertisers will come to you.

Three for three, actually.

The final question is: Whose site is it anyway?

Well, you're going to disagree, but this one belongs to Netsurfer. Frankly, I think that you've allowed animated .gifs and cookies to seize a whole lot more power in your world than they're ever likely to find in ours.

Let me tell you how I describe Netsurfer Science and Netsurfer Education to new writers. I tell them that my objective is to have readers riding off in all directions, just for the joy of discovery. I don't think that a few banner ads and cookies compromise that goal in any way.

Judi

I have written more articles on advertising and cookies. Click-Thru is Evil II, Time to Close the Web?, Cookies in the Back Door , DoubleClick Opts Out.

Alan Herrell - the head lemur

Judith David - Editor, Netsurfer Science