Comments on: I Won’t Be PaidPerPlay

By: Icemanandy

Icemanandy — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:57:45 +0000

By the time the webpage has loaded the ads over and gone forever anyway – and no-ones any the wiser. The ads just simply can’t work anyway so why not use them on some unimportant pages (Like as people click to go to another persons site from yours (Cos they don’t tend to reverse the click anyway)) and take what you can? Chances are you’ll find theres not enough ads to make the minimum amount that you have to earn before they will pay out to you and they go bust before you actually earn anything. Specially since they claim to make it so only ads relevant to your site play on your sites. As for on a sales page, this means that theres no question about you getting an ad for a competitor playing on your site so this would be a bad idea! If you want audio on a sales site, record your own so it’s for your own product, it’s the only way!

By: Christine

Christine — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:00:48 +0000

@ Charles – No, loyal readers of Ben’s blog won’t abandon it at the first sign of a five second audio ad. However, we are loyal readers in part because he doesn’t use obnoxious ad tactics, and we have come to expect that. As you can see from his monthly income updates, he’s doing just fine without the audio ads or popups that web users have grown to hate.

That being said, if a webmaster or blogger is comfortable with audio ads, they should absolutely test their effectiveness. Your point about watching the bounce rate is right on. The key there is that the blogger/webmaster has to be comfortable with audio ads.

By: Ben Cook

Ben Cook — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:55:32 +0000

Charles, here’s what you’re forgetting. If you play a 5 second audio ad on your site, NEW visitors will never get a chance to find out whether or not you have quality content that they’d be willing to be annoyed to read. They’ll just leave. You might keep your current readers, but you will be sacrificing new ones.

And really, it’s not Mike’s support of PPP that makes me think he doesn’t get blogging. It’s his statement of “As for my visitors… They don’t pay me anyway… so they can listen while I get paid.” that prompted that response. That tells me he doesn’t value his visitors and doesn’t realize that without them, he won’t be getting paid anything.

By: Charles Heflin

Charles Heflin — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:33:31 +0000

Ben… Dude lighten up… There is nothing to “get”

PPP is a newer form of media and people ALWAYS attack new media but then there are the zaggers (while everyone else zigs)… These are the cracks where fortunes are made… You can’t blame Mike for getting excited about the possibilities.

New forms of media will come and go… If PPP works then Mike will be right… If PPP doesn’t work then you will be right. The future cannot be foretold on this matter.

Everyone should test it… Maybe not on their prized blog but on another website just to see if bounce rates increase and do those that didn’t bounce make up in revenue what may have been lost from the bouncers?

This thing has to be tested before anyone can pass judgment.

People say they will turn away and run if they hear a 5 second audio ad. I say that if a loyal reader is ready to forget your content because you play a 5 second ad then they were going to leave anyways or your content sucks (not saying yours sucks Ben)

There are no studies or substantiated proof of any kind supporting the fact that people will sacrifice leaving good content (your blog) just because of a 5 second audio ad.

Would you miss your favorite TV show just because of 2.2 minutes of annoyance?

Some would say, “that’s why I have a DVR”… I say, well that’s why PPP was created… People are leaving television commercials behind.

Audio ads give televisions former advertising dollars to website owners in exchange for new reach. Advertising is good for the economy and it needs new places to express itself.

There are 2 sides to this track and I am laying squarely in the middle.

If PPP fails then it fails… If it succeeds then it succeeds

I don’t care either way because I will continue forward no matter what happens.

By: Ben Cook

Ben Cook — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 04:20:20 +0000

Mike, I’m not usually this rude to people on this blog but you are, quite simply, an idiot. Your last sentence is a perfect case study of the fact that some bloggers just never GET it.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 01:52:39 +0000

I like the idea of Pay-Per-Play NetAudioAds. I am looking for eveyway possible to make more money with my websites. Nobody likes salesmans. Nevertheless, nothing would be sold without them. Audio ads are just another way to generate cash!!! Without working around the clock… I’ll add the audio advertismentrs and watch my wallet fillup. As for my visitors… They don’t pay me anyway… so they can listen while I get paid.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 16:12:44 +0000

Why is that as soon as someone starts listing all the negative things they don’t do, I start imagining what they do do, but are trying to cover up?

I’m definitely with the majority here. Automatic audio separates the professional from the unprofessional. Those of us who remember the 90s internet know exactly why it stopped in the first place.

By: Pay-Per-Play: What's Their Agenda? | Web Marketing HowTo

Pay-Per-Play: What's Their Agenda? | Web Marketing HowTo — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 13:09:11 +0000

[...] I Won’t Be PaidPerPlay by Ben Cook over at The Blogging Experiment [...]

By: Ben Cook

Ben Cook — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 19:35:55 +0000

Rev, we do know how the adoption of automatic audio affects users. That’s been proven time and time again. Just because some high profile sites get away with it doesn’t mean other sites would. Also, I’d argue that we have seen countless examples of it turning visitors off to the sites. On some sites it’s an annoyance that we put up with but there’s no doubt that it’s obnoxious.

Take MySpace for example, one of the reasons facebook has become more popular is that they don’t have the obnoxious audio playing every time you come across a site.

Also, I would NEVER put automatic audio ads on a sales site. I mean talk about shooting yourself in the foot. On a sales site, you don’t want any distractions at all, not to mention audio ads for some other product or service. Every thing on the page should be directing someone to the sales message and to buy, why distract them?

Here are a couple of links to other posts that illustrate even more of why I’m not going to be using this service any time soon:
http://the449.com/paidperplay-no-good-if-youre-blind/
http://imscamalert.com/2007/12/14/payperplay-the-next-generation-of-intrusive-internet-marketing/lead-story

By: Revolutionary Ad Revenue Exposed

Revolutionary Ad Revenue Exposed — Tue, 25 Dec 2007 18:02:45 +0000

Ben,

If you knew your visitors won’t stand for the tiniest bit
of audios, then these ads should not be played for them.
After all you know best what they like.

But it’s NetAudioAds’ testing results that you’re calling a “BS”.
I’m just saying it for your knowledge.

If you’re for money-making then you know there are other
forms of websites where such audios are less perceived
as intrusive or irritating, eg. minisites, one-page salessites, etc.

PayPerPlay might not be for certain blogs, or for most blogs
for that matter. But if you’ve got a page that recommends
products, you could use it – for just one page. Where’s the
harm in that? Anyhow, to each publisher his own standards…

We still don’t know yet how a massive adoption of PPP ads
will affect visitor experience, just have to wait and see
about that.

On the web usability book’s advice of not using audios
that play automatically, guess it’s been violated countless
times already – by highly profitable websites that you’ve
probably encountered – using not just audios but videos
that play automatically… You don’t see those turning
off visitors, at least not those in the IM market.